DOCoMENT RESUME ED 469 975 HE 035 405 AUTHOR Trent, Judith S., Ed TITLe Included in Communication: Learning Climates That Cultivate Racial and Ethnic Diversity, INSTITUTION American Association for Higher Education, Washington, DC. National Communication Association, Annandale, VA SPONS AGENCY Knight Foundation, Inc., Akron, Ol. ISBN ISBN-1-56377-051-2 PUB DATE 2002-00-00 Nore 196p.; For other books in this set, see HE 035 406-407. AVAILABLE FROM American Association for Higher Education, AAHE Publications Orders, P.O. Box 1932, Merrifield, VA 22116-1932 (members, $26; nonmembers, $32). Tel: 301-685-6051; Fax: 301-843-9692; Web site: http: //www.aahe.org/catalog/order_info.cfm. PUB TYPE Books (010) ~~ Collected forks - General (020) EDRS PRICE EDRS Price MFO1/PCO8 Plus Postage DESCRIPTORS ‘academic Persistence; *College Faculty; *Communications; Diversity (Student); Educational Attainment; Higher Education; *Minority Groups; *Teaching Methods FIERS “People of Color IDENT: ABSTRACT This collection of essays is designed for the faculty member land others who care about the retention and success of students of color in gateway courses in Communications. The book examines assumptions about diversity and teaching and learning, and provides strategies for enacting learning environments that are more inclusive and conducive to the success of all students. The chapters in part 1, "Pedagogical Issues," are: (1) "Toward Good Global Warming: Improving the Interracial Communication Climate in Departments of Communication" (Thomas J. Socha and Kelly Fudge Albada); (2) "Coloring the Communication Experience: Using Personal Narratives To (Re) define Success of Students of Color in Communication" (G1ga Idriss Davis, Jacqueline M. Martinez, and Thonas K. Nskayama); (3) "Difference Is Not Disorder: Diaghosis in’ the Basic Communication Course" (Cheryl D. Gunter); (4) "Contextualizing the Success of African-American Students in Predominantly White Communication Departments" (Dorthy L. Pennington); (5) "pedagogies of Empowerment: A Framework for Promoting the Success of Students of Color" (Mary &. Triece, Patricia S. Hill, Kathleen D. Clark, Yang Lin, and Julia A. Spiker); (6) "Reshaping Rhetorical Rivers: Climate, Communication, and Coherence in the Basic Speech Course" (Mark Lawrence McPhail, Ronald B Scott, and Kathleen M. German); (7) "A Time for Inclusion: Strategies for Encouraging the Success of All Students" (Linda G. Stewart); (8) "Native- American First-Year Experiences; Sacrificing Cultures" (Nanci w. Burk): (9) Holistic Teaching Strategies in the Public Speaking Classroom" (Victoria 0. orrego, (Patricia Kearney, and Timothy G. Plas)? and (10) "Exploring Cultural Contracts in the Classroom and Curriculum: Implications of Identity Negotiation and Effects in Comminication Curricula" (Ronald L. Jackson, Carlos D. J. Morrison, and Celnisha L. Dangerfield). Part 2, "Instructional Practices,” contains: (11) "Teaching Assistant Workshop: Race, Ethnicity, and Nationality in the Classroom" (Katherine G. Hendrix and Aparna . Bulusu); (12) "Public Speaking in a second Language” (Dale Cyphert); (13) “Exploring Personal Prejudices: An Activity To Develop Interpersonal Communication Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document.Competence” (Cynthia Berryman-Fink); (14) “Learning about ‘Others," Learning about Ourselves: The Basic Communication Course" (Heather 5. Harris); (15) “Embracing Diversity through Music in the Interpersonal Communication Classroom" (Diane M. Monahan}; (16) "Group Ceremonial Speeches" (Ann Neville Miller); (17) "'Survivor'=-Everyone Stays on the Island: Promoting Personal Intercultural Skills" (Theresa Bridges and Tara Lynn Crowell); and (18) "The Cultural ero Presentation: Navigating between Exoticism and Assimilationism” (Roy Schwartzman and Bayo Oludeja). An appendix lists 62 Suggested readings. Each chapter contains references. (SLD) Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made ] from the original document.| |. _ reruission ro rerRODUCE AND «fe +, SISSERINATE as aren HAS | + BEEN GRANTED BY | | BPalleck— | TOTTHE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES | [ 4 Monwmon Geen ene) INCLUDED iN COMMUNICATION I LEARNING CLIMATES | oftS,QePaRrwent OF coucarion EDUERTIONAL RESOURCES INFORBIATION | THAT CULTIVATE RACIAL san, SENTER ERC) | | i document hae von eproducad as raza ram the peas oF ogee AND ETHNIC DIVERSITY 1 Minor changes ave been made to Improve veproduetion quay Posts vio opinions sated in hig ‘document go et ocean Seproson! ‘eal OBR! postion or poly 6 e cmp, OOOO OOO" C Published in cooperation with the 7 National Communication Association { LS) Lo) Be ¢ecerecIncluded in Communication Learning Climates That Cultivate Racial and Ethnic Diversity Judith S. Trent, editor Wenshu Lee, Mark Lawrence McPhail, and Dolores Valencia Tanno, associate editors Orlando L. Taylor, consulting reviewer Carolyn Vasques-Scalera, AAHE project editor A publication of Published in cooperation with the National Communication AssociationPublished in cooperation with the National Communication Association ‘The National Communication Association is a nonprofit organization of ‘Communication educators, practitioners, and students, with members in every state in the United States and 25 other countries. It is the oldest and largest national association promoting Communication scholarship and education. 1765 N Street, NW ‘Washington, DC 20036 hrep://wwwnatcom.org/ Included in Communication: Leaning Climates That Cultivate Racial and Ethnic Diversity Jadith §, Treat, editor ‘Wenshu Lee, Mark Lawrence MPhil, and Dolores Valencia Tanno, associate editors Orlando L. Taylor, consulting reviewer Carciyn Vasques-Sealera, ASHE project editor Copyright © 2002 American Assocation for Higher Education. All rights reserved. Printed in the United Staves of Ameria ‘Opinions expressed in this publication are the contributors’ and do not necessarily represent those of the American Association for Higher Education nor its members. AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR HIGHER EDUCATION ‘One Dupont Circle, Suite 360 ‘Washington, DC 20036 ph 202/293-6440, fax 202/293-0073 worw.asheorg, 10987654321 ISBN 1-56377-051-2Contents Foreword.....6....+0065 Yolanda T. Moses ‘The Diversity Framework Informing This Volume ........+++ Carolyn Vasques-Scalera Introduction .. Judith S, ‘Trent PART ONE: PEDAGOGICAL ISSUES ‘Toward Good Global Warming: Improving the Interracial Communication Climate in Departments of Communication. . ‘Thomas J. Socha and Kelly Fudge Albeda Coloring the Communication Experience: Using Personal Narratives to (Re)define Success of Students of Color in Communication . . (Olga Idriss Davis, Jacqueline M. Martinez, and Thomas K. Nakayama Difference Is Not Disorder: Diagnosis in the Basic Communication Course ...... Cheryl D. Gunter Contextualizing the Success of African-American Students in Predominantly White Communication Departments ......+20600000+004646 Dorthy L. Pennington Pedagogies of Empowerment: A Framework for Promoting the Success of Students of Color. . . May E. Triece, Patricia S, Hill, Kathleen D. Clark, Yang Lin, and Julia A. Spiker Reshaping Rhetorical Rivers: Climate, Communication, and Coherence in the Basic Speech Course . . BH +76 Mark Lawrence McPhail, Ronald B, Scot, and Kathleen M. German A Time for Inclusion: Strategies for Encouraging the Success of All Students . 5 ee 98 Linda G. Seward Native-American First-Year Experiences: Sacrificing Cultures . ‘Nanci M. BurkHolistic Teaching Strategies in the Public Speaking Classroom . Victoria O. Orrego, Patricia Kearney, and Timothy G. Plax Exploring Cultural Contracts in the Classroom and Curriculum: Implications of Identity Negotiation and Effects in Communication Curricula .......600000seeeeeeee ee eis Roneld L. Jackson IT, Carlos DJ. Morrison, and Celnisha L. Dangerfield PART TWO: INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES ‘Teaching Assistant Workshop: Race, Ethnicity, and Nationality in the Classroom Katherine G. Hendrix and Aparna S. Bulusu Public Speaking in a Second Language. .....-++- Dale Cyphert Exploring Personal Prejudices: An Activity to Develop Interpersonal Communication Competence . (Cynthia Berryman-Fink coe 148 Learning About “Others,” Learning About Ourselves: “The Basic Communication Course. . Heather E. Harris Embracing Diversity Through Music in the Interpersonal Communication Classroom . Diane M. Monahan = 160 Group Ceremonial Speeches .. Ann Neville Miller Survivor — Everyone Stays on the Island: Promoting Personal Intercultural Skills ‘Theresa Bridges and Tara Lynn Crowell = 163 ‘The Cultural Hero Presentation: Neviguing Between Exoticism and Assimilationism . Roy Schwarteman and Bayo Oludaja = 168 APPENDIX Suggested Readings................ -175 About the Editors and Authors. .Foreword he American Association for Higher Education is pleased to publish this most timely volume, Included in Communication: Learning Climates That Cultivate Racial and Ethnic Diversity, the frst of three volumes that will showcase innovative teaching and learning strategies, provide fac- ulty in selected disciplines examples from their peers 2s to how they can make a difference in the success of students of color in introductory and gateway courses, and promote conversations in departments across the nation about the impor- tance of diversity and the opportunity it brings to explore innovative pedagogy and revitalize learning in classrooms. ‘The 2ist century is the time for higher education to rise to the occasion to serve the most diverse student population in history. For more than 30 years, AAHE has been the premier higher education association to lead faculty to achieve teaching and learning excellence. For the past decade or so, colleges and universities around the country have been trying to determine the impact of diver- sity on curricular and cocurricular life. In 1999, AAHIE’s Board of Directors off cially adopted a statement on diversity in which they pledge: “AAHE will contin- ue through its projects, conferences, and publications to assist campuses to increase access and diversity for students, faculty, and staf, as well as in curzicula and programs.” This publication builds on that pledge. ‘The three volumes (in Communication, Sociology, and English Studies) also represent AAHE’s continuing commitment to collaboration on two levels. First, they bring together AAHE’s own work in assessment, faculty roles and rewards, teaching and learning, and diversity in new ways. Second, AAHE is also collaborating with disciplinary associations — the National Communication Association, the American Sociological Association, and the National Council of “Teachers of English, respectively. All three books are produced under the leader- ship of Dr. Carolyn Vasques-Scalera, AAHE’ director of diversity initiatives, and disciplinary colleagues, with funding from the Knight Foundation. Research shows that the success of students of color ultimately depends on the transformation of faculty who teach them, as well as institutional and depart- mental climates that value the presence of diverse students. AAHE as a praxis organization is committed to taking research and operationalizing it through exemplary practice, as modeled through this publication. Yolanda T: Moses President, American Association for Higher Education ?The Diversity Framework Informing This Volume Carolyn Vasques-Sealera is volume is one of three in a project funded by the Knight Foundation. Each asks the question how can we create learning climates (in Communica- tion, in Sociology, and in English Studies, respectively) that cultivate racial and ethnic diversity and promote the success of al! our students? The concept for these disciplinary monographs emerged from two impor- tant realities. First, despite gains made in access to higher education, numerous studies show that students of color remain underrepresented at every degree level and in many disciplines. Second, despite all we have learned about effective teach- ing and learning and about the importance of diversity in general, we haven't done enough to translate that general knowledge into specific disciplinary and teaching practices. These volumes are an attempt to make more intentional che connec~ tions between diversity and teaching/learning and to provide faculty with concrete strategies for enacting those connections in their discipline. To that end, there are several critical questions that must be considered ‘What are our assumptions about who learns and how? Do we enact, prac- tices that suggest that there is only one way to teach and learn and belong to a dis- ciplinary community? Do we send the message that only some students are capa- ble of learning; that students are somehow deficient if they fail to learn under the conditions set explicitly or implicitly by the discipline? Do we adhere to elitist “weed-out” notions of success, that students who fail to succeed simply did not belong? Do we think of diversity in terms of excellence, or diminishment? Why should disciplines care about diversity? The Framework’s Elements “Diversity” is a term that has been used widely and loosely with very different ‘meanings and implications for practice. The questions posed above reveal some important insights about the particular diversity framework informning this volume and its companion two volumes to come. 1 ‘These volumes challenge the deficit model of diversity, in which difference is equated with deficiency and seen as a challenge rather than as an opportunity for 8Vasques-Scalera vii learning. Al! seudents and faculty bring a wealth of tradition, information, and experience to their understandings of the world, and that wealth can contribute in meaningful ways to the leaning process. Furthermore, to focus on how some stu- dents are different, or to assume that different means “deficient,” isto leave unex amined how the learning experience is set up to the benefit of particular groups by rewarding their culture-specific ways of knowing and doing. These volumes move beyond a singular focus on access and representational diversity — the mumbers of students of color in our classes and campuses — to ‘examine the experiences students face once there. It not enough to recruit diverse students if we do nothing to retain them; that is, if we don't offer a teaching/lean- ing environment where they are genuinely included and are expected to succeed. 3 In thinking about students’ experiences, these volumes expand the conversation beyond the usual focus on content — what we teach — to a discussion about the impact on students of process — how we teach. The volumes don't advocate an additive approach to curriculum, in which diverse perspectives are simply tacked oon to the content of courses. Rather, they prompt us to think deeply about what it means to be included in classroom and disciplinary communities, and the ways in which we create, intentionally or not, barriers to meaningful student learning and participation in those communities. The volumes ask faculty to examine the hidden messages in our pedagogy, and they provide some alternate ways of teach- ing that are more inclusive and conducive to the success of diverse students. 4 “These volumes challenge the notion that diversity is solely or primarily the responsibility of certain faculty (usually faculty of color); involves particular stu- dents (usually students of color); and is relevant only to certain areas of the cam- pus (student affairs) or to specific disciplines (humanities and social sciences). The issues they raise and the practices they advocate illustrate not merely the relevance but the absolute centrality of diversity to teaching and learning. Their essays chal- lenge not merely pedagogical practices but the epistemological foundations upon which each discipline rests. Each volume makes diversity relevant to that discipli- nary context and raises important questions about what it means to engage in a disciplinary community that truly values diversity. They make clear that teaching and learning about diversity is not the same as engaging diversity and diverse learn- ers in the learning process, As such, they model for other disciplines how to take up these issues. 9The Diversity Framework 5 While these volumes primarily address students of color and gateway courses, the issues raised apply to other forms of difference; the practices described transcend specific courses; and because the volumes are essentially about enhancing peda- gogy and engaging diversity, the benefits extend to ail students. An important theme concerns not simply making curriculum and pedagogy more relevant to students of color, but helping all students (and indeed, faculty) become more cul- turally aware and multiculturally competent. A growing body of research docu- ments the benefits of having diverse learners and of engaging diversity issues — not just for the success of students of color, but for all students, 6 Finally, while the focus is mainly on classrooms, these volumes include essays and instructional practices that situate the classroom within ies larger departmental, institutional, and disciplinary contexts. A meaningfully diverse classroom climate isa necessary but insufficient criterion to achieving the goals outlined above. Stu- dents also need to see themselves reflected in the curriculum and in the faces of faculty and administrators. Students need to experience an inclusive campus cli- mate and disciplinary community. Individual faculty members enacting good practices in their classes is not enough; we need departmental, institutional, and discipline-wide support for diversity. A Prompt for Conversation and Change Thus the title of the volumes, Included in — which reflects that itis not enough to recruit students of color into higher education and into the disciplines if, once there, their progress is blocked by teaching/learning practices that exclude them. Nor is it enough to focus on persistence and success if, by that, we mean success only in the academy's dominant ways of thinking and learning. To their credit, many students of color have succeeded in higher education and will continue to succeed despite too-often unwelcoming climates and other barriers. But the title reflects the larger outcome we all desire; that is, for students of color to feel indud~ ed in a discipline, to feel a sense of ownership and empowerment in the learning process, the discipline, the academy. The subtitle — Learning Climates That Culti- vate Racial and Ethnic Diversity — reflects the means for getting there, that we must intentionally cultivate diversity (in all its forms). To do that is not simply a matter of letting people in, it means opening up the knowledge-creation process. The result is a more vital and viable discipline. The use of the word cultivate is very intentional. These volumes present a fandamental challenge to the weed-out mentality that says only some students can learn and those who fail don't deserve to be there. But neither do the volumes laVasques-Scalera ix assume that to succeed, students simply need to learn better study skills, They are not about changing who students are or how they learn, Rather, these volumes are intended to encourage faculty to examine our assumptions about who students are and how they learn, and the ways in which our pedagogy either contributes to or inhibits the inclusion and success of all our students. These volumes are not intended as the final or definitive word on cultivat- ing racial and ethnic diversity in the disciplines. Nor are they meant to be cook- books for doing so. We risk perpetuating the exclusion and marginalization of stu- dents of color if we equate identity with learning style, or apply unreflectively the instructional practices that work well in one context with one group of students to all contexts and groups. Instead, the volumes are intended as a resource for con- versation and examining assumptions, and they provide some guidelines for prac- tice. But we must think carefully about who our students are, and enact multiple forms of teaching and learning that provide opportunities for all students to be genuinely included. Clearly the issues raised in this volume and the ones to follow point to the need for more research in the scholarship of teaching and learning that explicitly investigates diversity questions. My hope is that you will find the monographs — individually and collectively — stimulating and empowering in furthering such work in collaboration with colleagues on campus, at your disciplinary meetings, and at AAHE events. I invite you to visit the AAHE website (wwwaahe.org) for further resources and for venues in which to share your progress. These are issues about which I care deeply, and with which I continue to struggle in my own teaching, It is exciting and illuminating to lean how different disciplines are grappling with these issues and bringing discipline-specific research 10 bear on pedagogical practices. Acknowledgments I would like to express my thanks to the editorial team from Communication, led by Dr. Judith ‘Trent, of the University of Cincinnati, for cheir hard work in bring- ing this volume to fruition under such a tight timeline; also to our colleagues at the National Communication Association, particularly James Gaudino and Sher- ty Morreale, for their support of this coilaboration. Many thanks to Bry Pollack, director of publications at AAHE, for her keen editorial eye. This volume (and those in Sociology and English Studies) would not be possible without the generous support of the Knight Foundation and the guidance of Rick Love and Julia Van. ‘Mose especially, thanks go to the faculty members in Communication who willingly and ably raised some critical issues and shared exemplary practices by which we might create more-inclusive disciplines, and indeed, a more-inclusive academy. di]Introduction udith 8. Trent he primary puspose of this volume, produced collaboratively by the Ameri- can Association for Higher Education (AAHE) and the National Communi- cation Association (NCA), is to describe effective pedagogical strategies for increasing the participation and success of students of color in the Communica tion major. Specifically, the volume intends to: encourage conversations about inclusive teaching and learning and the importance of diversity issues in Communication pedagogy; provide Communication faculty with concrete teaching and learning strategies with which to promote the success of students of color in the ‘gateway courses — that is, the courses that most often lead to a Communication major (Public Speaking, Interpersonal Communication, Group Communication, and the hybrid or combination course !); and, Glencourage discipline-wide action to remove any barriers to the success of students of color in Communication. ‘To achieve these three objectives, this volume includes two kinds of contributions. Part One contains 10 essays that focus on pedagogical, curricular, and administra- tive issues, examining a variety of factors that affect the success of students of color in the four basic Communication courses. Part ‘Two describes exemplary in- structional practices focusing on diversity and teaching and learning in the basic courses. National Communication Association When NCA’ executive director, James L. Gaudino, and associate director, Sher- wyn P. Morreale, asked me to develop and edit this volume, I agreed to do so largely because of the longtime commitment of the Association and its leaders and members to issues of diversity. I had worked with Jim and Sherry when, while L was president of NCA in 1997, we developed a Summer Conference on Racial and Ethnic Diversity. ‘The National Communication Association was founded in 1914 (for more, see Work and Jeffrey 1989). Almost 90 years later, the field of Communication is a large and vigorous one, marked by advancements in the study, criticism, research, teaching, and application of the artistic, humanistic, and scientific prin- ciples of communication, Now the oldest and largest academic society of Com- 122_Introduction munication scholar-teachers in the world, NCA has grown from 17 to 7,100 members. Their research interests span all forms of human communication, rang- ing from face-to-face communication in dyads ¢o mediated communication reach- ing large public audiences. The U.S. Department of Education's Classification of Instructional Programs-2000 defines “communication studies” as a “group of instructional programs that focus on how messages in various media are produced, used, distributed, and interpreted within and across different contexts, channels, and cultures, and that prepare individuals to apply communication knowledge and skills professionally.” Approximately 4,100 NCA members meet annually at the NCA national convention to present the results of their research. In addition, the Association convenes national and international conferences on specific foci in the Commu- nication field. NCAs membership comes from all 50 states in the United States, plus the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and Guam. In addition, individuals from 25 other countries are NCA members. Affiliate organizations currently include ‘Communication societies from Israel and South Africa, and ongoing contacts with organizations in Latin America, Russia, and the People’s Republic of China. NCAS membership affiliates with a number of divisions that focus on specific research topics. Currently, those units include African American Communication and Culture; American Studies Commission; Applied Communication; Argu- mentation and Forensics; Asian/Pacific American Communication Studies; Basic ‘Course; Communication and Aging; Communication and Law; Communication and the Future; Communication Apprehension and Avoidance; Communication Assessment; Communication Ethics; Communication Needs of Students at Risk; Critical and Cultural Studies; Environmental Communication; Ethnography; Experiential Learning in Communication; Family Communication; Feminist and Women Studies; Freedom of Expression; Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender Studies; Group Communication; Health Communication Division; Human Communication and ‘Technology; Instructional Development; International and Intercultural Communication; Interpersonal Communication; Intrapersonal Communication and Social Cognition; Language and Social Interaction; Lati- nna/Latino Communication Studies; Mass Communication; Organizational Com- munication; Peace and Conflict; Performance Studies; Political Communication; Public Address; Public Relations; Rhetorical and Communication Theory; Serni- otics and Communication; Spiritual Communication; Theatre; ‘Training and Development; Vietnamese Communication; Visual Communication. NCA publishes seven scholarly journals, including Communication Educa- tion, which is solely devoted to Communication pedagogy; two annuals, one on freedom of expression and the other on intercultural communication; an index to journals in Communication; a series of books arising from the research of the dis- cipline; and a serial publication of teaching activities, a quarterly called The Com- smaunication Teacher: 13Trent 3 In addition to growing membership and breadth and depth of publications, scholarship, and pedagogy, recently NCA has extended its national influence in other ways. The Association belongs to several societies that promote scholarship (eg., American Council of Learned Societies, Consortium of Social Science Asso- iations, National Humanities Alliance). The Association's professional staff as well as individual members have also cultivated external alliances with other disci- plinary societies (e.g., American Historical Association, American Political Sci- ence Association, American Psychological Association, American Sociological Association), with interdisciplinary organizations (e.g., American Association for Higher Education, Association of American Colleges and Universities, Council of Graduate Schools), and with funding agencies (e.g., The Carnegie Foundation, National Science Foundation, Pew Charitable rusts). Throughout this period of expansion, the Association and its members continued to honor their core value of diversity in their research and pedagogy. NCA and Diversity ‘This volume represents a watershed in the evolution of NCAS history of commit- ment to diversity. Since its founding, the Association has demonstrated, through both its policies and its actions, that Communication is a field that views diversity as an advantage to an academic discipline. Therefore, it came as no surprise that ‘Communication was among the first disciplines approached by AAHE to develop a publication totally devoted to examining ways to encourage and retain under- graduate students of color. During the 1960s, NCA was one of the first disciplinary societies to estab- lish a member-based caucus devoted solely to the scholarship of and issues of importance to its black members (see Daniel 1995). In 1968, NCA established an ad hoc Committee on Social Relevance, which held its first meeting at the NCA 1968 national convention. According to one of the founders of the NCA Black Caucus, that meeting was an early indicator of NCAS interest in issues of diversity: We were treading in very unfamiliar waters, and hence there was no way to anticipate what "went down” at the December 28, 1968, Open Meeting on Social Relevance at the Sheraton Hotel in Chicago. The event was a true 1960s “happening.” All Association members were invited to attend. The extra large meeting room was packed, wall-to-wall, standing room only, with approximately 2,000 long-haired White folks, a small handful of bushy hheaded Black folks, and other folks who felt “a deep need to get involved.” (@anie! 1295: 5) “That Social Relevance Committee evolved into NCAS Black Caucus. Meetings of the Caucus at the national convention frequently overflow room capacity, and its members annually convene a national summer conference as well. 144 Introduction “Today, NCA boasts an Asian/Pacific Ainerican Caucus, Black Caucus, Cau- cus on Disability Issues, Caucus on Gay and Lesbian Concerns, La Raza Caucus, and Women’s Caucus. Each serves as a meeting place for persons from underrep- resented groups in the Association. These caucuses promote initiatives and pre- sent convention programs featuring research on topics related to the group served by the caucus. The caucuses also represent the political agendas of their con- stituents to the Association as a whole. This is often done through NCAS Affir- mative Action and Inter-Caucus Committee, which reports directly to the Asso- ciation’ national governing bodies. With the members ofits Black Caucus as a starting point, in the 1980s NCA. initiated a working relationship with a number of the historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs) in an effort to familiarize their faculty and students with the goals and teaching and research programs/activities of the Association, In 1996, I appointed a national task force on racial and ethnic diversity. That group developed a major research agenda for the purpose of better understanding and, where necessary, redirecting the Association’ programs in support of diversity. Specifically, the task force, Jim Gaudino, and I surveyed all Communication departments in an attempt to ientify the racial and ethnic profiles of Communi- cation faculty and students, the frequency and nature of recruitment and retention practices of Communication departments, and the perceptions of students of color of the climate within the Communication discipline. The results of this first questionnaire suggested that although most Communication departments partic ipated actively in institutional éfforts designed to recruit faculty and students of color, underrepresentation remained a problem. ‘A questionnaire, sent to each of the students of color who had been identi- fied by his or her department, sought to leam more about departmental and insti- tutional climate — i.e., whether, from their experiences as undergraduate Com- ‘munication majors or as graduate students in Communication, the discipline was hospitable to students of color. Although a majority of respondents believed that their department was more supportive of diversity generally than was their cam- pus, they felt that at both levels there was more rhetoric about diversity than there was action. They said, for example, that although the issue was frequently dis- cussed, there were no really significant efforts to recruit students of color. They also noted that there were so few faculty of color that students tended to feel lost. And that while white faculty supported diversity rhetorically, they did not show a behavioral commitment to recruit additional students of color or to build suffi- cient supports programs within deparuents. In response to these findings, in 1997 NCA convened a summer conference focused on racial and ethnic diversity in the field of Communication. That con- ference generated guiding principles and action plans for addressing four topics -essential to the success of any diversity initiative for a department or a campus: ccriticism and research; pedagogy and curriculum; administration, recruitment, ve 15Trent S and retention; and campus and departmental climate and culture, (The proceed- ings of the conference, Racial and Ethnic Diversity in the Ist Century: A Communi cation Perspective, was published by NCA in 1997.) ‘The 1997 conference also resulted in the creation of an action plan that addressed all aspects of the Association’ support for diversity in Communication research and instruction. For example, the plan called for efforts to increase the diversity of editorial boards and to make NCA% journals more sensitive to schol- arship that had previously been marginalized. ‘The plan also included an Associa- tion-funded grant (which was awarded twice) to departmental programs targeted to increase diversity. More recently, the Association undertook an effort to forge better relation- ships between urban universities, HBCUs, and majority-white academic institu- tions. NCA% studies clearly demonstrated that while the discipline as a whole is “underrepresented in terms of students and faculty of color, some Communication departments at urban campuses and HBCUs have large numbers of stdents of color. However, the study also suggests that the HBCU programs offer primarily ‘undergraduate degrees and that the students typically do not go on to study Com- munication at the graduate level. NCAS current efforts are designed to forge clos- er relationships between undergraduate programs at the HBCUs and the gradu- ate programs at majority-white institutions. About This Volume Developing and editing this volume has been, from beginning to end, a joyous and enriching experience. First, we were fortunate in putting together an editorial board that would be the envy of any editor. Wenshu Lee, from San Jose State Uni- versity; Mark Lawrence McPhail, from Miami University; Dolores Valencia ‘Tanno, from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas; and consulting reviewer Orlan- do L. Taylor, from Howard University, made helpful suggestions about the over~ all direction the volume should take and later made knowledgeable and perceptive recommendations regarding the manuscripts. And they did everything in a neces- sarily brief time period. (A truly awesome group of people.) Second, when we put out the open call to all NCA members for essays and instructional practices, we received more than twice the mumber than could be used. Third, all contributors had the final copy of their manuscript to us by the day it was due, (Surely chis must be a record.) And finally, being a part of this vol- ume has been a pleasure because the ideas, advice, and examples that are this book. will facilitate the intellectual growth and development of our skills as more cul- turally aware and sensitive Communication teachers and professionals. ‘The volume is organized into two major sections, essays and instructional practices for promoting the success of students of color in Communication. With- in each, the contributions move from general principles to specific strategies. 166 Introduction In Part One, 10 essays provide a scholarly look at pedagogical, curricular, and administrative issues. In the first essay, Thomas J. Socha and Kelly Fudge Albada argue that the communication environment in academic departments is a component critical to the success of students of color. Importantly, they offer examples of successful departmental climate-warming activities. Next, Olga Idriss Davis, Jacqueline M. Martinez, and Thomas K. Nakayama maintain that students of color recognize that traditionally structured and presented Communication courses have little relevance to their everyday lives. The authors urge a revision in the research and teaching of the discipline that would foreground communication as a phenomenon of experience linked to time, place, and circumstance. Cheryl D. Gunter is concerned with the formulation of criteria for the successful com- pletion of classroom activities. Because students of color can present with distinc- tive communication traits, the author urges instructors to develop appropriate evaluative criteria for all students, Dorthy L. Pennington focuses on promoting the success of African-American students in predominantly white Communica tion departments and asserts that success must be viewed holistically — the whole campus environment in which the students of color must operate. Mary E. Triece, Patricia S. Hill, Kathleen D. Clark, Yang Lin, and Julia A. Spiker argue for a teaching process and a learning environment based on pedagogies of empower- ment. These authors discuss teaching philosophies and suggest classroom activi- ties and learning communities that contribute to pedagogies of empowerment. ‘The next five essays in Part One offer more specific discussions for improv- ing selected Communication introductory or gateway courses. In “Reshaping Rhetorical Rivers: Climate, Communication, and Coherence in the Basie Speech Course,” Mark Lawrence McPhail, Ronald B, Scott, and Kathleen M. German discuss the way in which the intellectual and institutional climate of colleges, uni- versities, and academic departments affects students of color in basic Communi cation courses. The authors suggest some specific curricular strategies that can transform the atmosphere and therefore the outcomes for students in the Public Speaking course, Next, Linda G. Seward argues that even though universities tra- ditionally study nonwhite, non-male cultures in isolation, the Interpersonal Com- munication course, because it focuses on concepts rather than groups, can be developed to counter intellectual segregation or omission. Suggestions for creat ing a concept-oriented class are offered. Nanci M. Burk focuses on the basic course experience of Native-American students, suggesting storytelling as one pedagogical methodology to improve classroom discussions of diverse cultures. Victoria O. Orrego, Patricia Kearney, and Timothy G, Plax explain and advocate a holistic teaching strategy in the basic Public Speaking course. They discuss the ways in which lectures, class activities, and altemate teaching tools can be used in diverse classrooms, Finally, Ronald L. Jackson Il, Carlos DJ. Morrison, and Cel- nisha L. Dangerfield recommend the “cultural contract” paradigm as an approach to diversity. They provide strategies for empowering students of color in the basic 17Trent 7 Public Speaking course and argue that the inclusion of cultural diversity in the Communication curriculum is a way to retain students of color in the discipline. In Part ‘Two, eight instructional practices provide substantive and eclectic information for Communication instruction in diverse classrooms in the basic courses. As in Part One, the contributions in this section progress from the gen- eral to the specific. The first contribution, by Katherine G. Hendrix and Aparna S. Bulusu, describes a workshop for the preparation of graduate assistants to teach in a multicultural classroom. The second, by Dale Cyphert, has as its focus the inclusion of cross-linguistic speaking to help students who have English as their second language or who have strong dialects. ‘The lst six instructional practices present specific useful and creative teach- ing activities for the diverse classroom. Cynthia Beryman-Fink explains an exer- cise that helps students explore their personal prejudices. Heather E, Harris writes about an exercise she calls “Learning About ‘Others,’ Learning About Ourselves.” ‘The activity presented by Diane M. Monahan involves the use of music in the Interpersonal Communication classroom; while Ann Neville Miller’ activity advocates the use of group ceremonial speeches in the Public Speaking classroom. ‘Theresa Bridges and ‘Tara Lynn Crowell explain a semester-long exercise that gives students the opportunity to create personal repertoires of intercultural skills. And Roy Schwartzman and Bayo Oludaja provide-an activity that promotes stu- dent investigation of ethnic, racial, and cultural backgrounds — their own and those of other individuals. “Taken together, the essays present a wealth of innovative ideas available for Communication instruction in the basic courses. Acknowledgments ‘The concept for this book (and those that might follow in other disciplines) orig- inated with the American Association for Higher Education. The National Com- munication Association and I have had the pleasure of working with the series edi- tor, Carolyn Vasques-Scalera, director of diversity initiatives at AAHE, from the early thinking about the volume through its completion. The association with AAHE and Carolyn has been a positive experience. Working with the NCA professional staff, once again, has also been a di tinct pleasure. I especially want to thank Jim Gaudino for his enthusiastic support of the volume and Sherry Morreale for her skilled advice and help in this project from beginning to end, In fact, Sherry led the successful collaboration between NCA and AAHE that was key to Communication’ being selected by AAHE to contribute a volume on promoting the academic success of students of color. also want to thank: two other very important people without whom we could not have sustained the initial interest in the volume among NCA members nor met the publication deadlines Evelyn Crothers, my 83-years-young mother, 188 Introduction did all of the initial correspondence with potential contributors who answered our call for manuscripts; and Lisa A. Connelly, a University of Cincinnati graduate assistant in the Department of Communication, very conscientiously and careful- ly helped in the preparation of the final manuscript. Finally, I thank my Communication colleagues — the authors of the essays and instructional practices. I have learned much from them and appreciate their enthusiastic participation in this important project. I believe the expertise they have shared will be of great benefit to all of us — and, more important, to all of our students. Notes 1. These four courses were selected for primary consideration in the volume because they represent the four most popular orientations to the course identified in a series of national surveys conducted of the basic Communication course, beginning in 1969 and most recently in 1999 (see Morreale etal. 1999). 2. This definition and a categorical description of Commmanication, Journal, and other related fields, Section 09, was developed for the U.S. Department of Education by the National Communication Association, in collaboration with the member associations of the Council of Communication Associations, References Daniel, JL. (1995). Changing the Players and the Game: A Personal Account of the Speech Communication Black Caucus Origins. Washington, DC: National Communication Association. ‘Morreale, S,, M. Hanna, R. Berko, and J. Gibson. (1999). “The Basic Communication Course at U.S, Colleges and Universities: VIL" Basic Communication Course Armual 11: 1-36, Work, W,, and R. Jeffrey. (1989). The Past Is Prologue: 4 Brief History of the Speech Communication Association. Washington, DC: National Communication Association, 419Part One Pedagogical Issues 20Toward Good Global Warming Improving the Interracial Communication Climate in Departments of Communication Thomas J. Socha and Kelly Fudge Albada O ert racism might be on the decline, but al facets of the university, especially academic departments, face the challenge of creating a welcoming environ- ment for students of color. Departments of Communication, in particular, have made (or are well-positioned to make) progress in warming chilly racial climates. This essay extends previous theoretical work on the problem of the “chilly climate for women” (Hall and Sandler 1982, 1984) to the problem of the chilly climate for students of color in Communication. First, we review the literature from the dis cipline of Communication Studies and allied fields that have examined the covi- cept of chilly communication climate. Next, we develop an outline of points to consider when assessing a Communication department’ racial communication climate (eg., faculty knowledge-abilicy, representation in classroom readings, and so on). Finally, we highlight examples of successful interracial-climate warming in two Communication departments, including students’ assessments of class read- ings and textbooks, Chilly Communication Climate Communication scholars have studied communication climate in the contexts of organizations and organizational relationships (Falcione 1974; Fink and Chen 1995; Follert 1980), departmental and college training programs for graduate stu- dents (Andrews 1983), groups (Gibb 1960), and classrooms (Rosenfeld 1983; Rosenfeld and Jarrard 1985). This work has generally defined communication climate as “the social/psychological context within which relationships occur” (Rosenfeld 1983: 167) and has highlighted the importance of developing support- ive, welcoming communication environments if successful communication and satisfying relationships are to develop. ‘According to Fink and Chen (1995), communication climates are multidi- mensional and consist of at least three levels: Psychological climate is the individual member's cognitive representation of ... the prevalent values, norms, and expectations in his or her organizational environment. . . . Organizational climate is a set of attitudes: and beliefs that is shared and collectively held by organizational members at u12 Pedagogical Issues ‘aS a whole... Finally, group climate is the elaboration of organizational climate that permits group members to reinterpret the organization [within ‘organizational groups}. (485) Psychological communication climate can be experienced differently among indi viduals in an organization, and the organizational climate (i., shared perceptions) couid be more or less shared and more or less understood among different groups of people in the organization (e.g., management employees, white employees, black employees). However, Fink and Chen (1995) found that the more time colleagues spent communicating, the greater the convergence between psycho- logical climate and organizational climate (ie. increased similarity between how the individual sees the organization and generally shared perceptions of the organization). Psychological climate and organizational climate can take on positive or negative qualities, or in Gibb (1960) terms, become “supportive” or “defensive.” A communication climate that takes on positive qualities that foster crusting, cooperative, and friendly communication would be considered supportive. In con- trast, a defensive climate takes on negative qualities that “limit preconceptions about appropriate and expected behaviors, abilities, .. . and] personal goals . . based on [negative] sex roles [or racial stereotypes} rather than on individual inter- ests and ability” (Hall and Sandler 1982: 4), Both defensive and supportive communication climates can vary in degree as well asin level of explicitness or openness. That is, psychological and organ tional communication climates can vary in degrees of supportiveness-defensive- ness (e.g., a “hostile” communication climate is one that is viewed as extremely negative/defensive) and be more or less explicitly or openly supportive or defen- sive. For example, a defensive communication climate (psychological and organi- zational) can be experienced subtly and referred to as “chilly.” A chilly climate is characterized by a general and subtle feeling of “unwelcomeness” that people experience when interacting in this particular context. That feeling might be shared widely and regarded as an aspect of organizational climate as well as be an aspect of the psychological climate for particular individuals. Previous research on the “chilly” climate has focused primarily on the expe- riences of women, but also it has examined the experiences of ethnic minorities in organizations. That past work attempted to operationally define qualities of defensive and supportive climates. For example, Fink and Chen (1995) adopted a Galileo approach that relies on a series of questionnaires that ask about attitudinal similarity, belief similarity, and climate-perception similarity, with an eye to exam- ining the co-construction of climate. In classrooms, climage has been measured using the Communication Climate Questionnaire (Hays 1970) and the Class- room Environment Scale (Trickett and Moos i973). These scales directly (see Hays 1970) or indirectly draw on the work of Gibb (1960) and incorporate his 22Socha and Albada 13 defensive-supportive elements of communication clima ness, provisionalism, positiveness, and equality. Research has found that defensive climates in the ious ways. For example, a professor's messages could be perceived as sexist and/or as unsupportive (Rosenfeld and Jarrard 1985). Students experiencing a defensive communication classroom environment, according to Rosenfeld (1983), might respond with “coping mechanisms” to manage their feelings of defensiveness. “Active mechanisms” can inchide verbally resisting a professor’ influences, retal- iating against the professor, or forming alliances; “passive coping mechanisms” include hiding feelings, not doing what the professor asks, or daydreaming. Si ilarly, Ellis and Fisher (1994) argued that since a group's communication climate arises from its members’ communication and perceptions of their relationships, changing a negative communication climate involves reducing defensiveness in the talk, specifically giving people ways to save face, avoiding accusatory and intimidating messages, and focusing on common needs and goals. penness, descriptive- room develop in var- Chilly Interracial Classroom Communication Climate This discussion of the general qualities of the chilly communication climate also applies to interracial communication on campus. According to Hall and Sandler, “Minority students frequently find the general campus climate at predominantly white institutions to be he major barrier to intellectual and personal development and to the completion of degree work” [emphasis in original] (1984: 11). Further, minority students who drop out “cite a general academic, social, and cultural cli- mate that makes them feel like unwelcome guests, where simply trying to survive day-to-day uses up an inordinate amount of energy” (11). Hall and Sandler (1984) also noted that minority students’ efforts to create supportive environments by bonding with other minority students sometimes can be misperceived and responded to defensively by the dominant group. ‘The interracial communication literature offers examples of chilly interra- Gal climates encountered by students of color. According to Henderson (1999): Daily we witness the negative effects of racial prejudice. It creates inequali- ties, exclusions, and an atmosphere of rejection that prevent some groups of people from being allowed into mainstream American life. Prejudice is like a terrible cancer, engulfing the entire body, mind, and spirit, often defying the skils of those who wish to intervene. (xs) Coxe (1993) adds to this description by commenting on the “perceptual chasm separating so many blacks and whites” (13). According to Cose, “the problem is not only that we are afraid to talk to one another, it is also that we are disinclined to listen. And even when the will to understand is present, often the ability (gained through analogous experiences) is not” (13). “314 Pedagogical Issues Given that communication and perceptions of relationships are key loca- tions for the creation of chilly interracial climates for students of color, an impor- tant context to examine is the classroom. Speaking about che chilly interracial communication climate in university classrooms, Henderson (1999) identified 10 questions that black students ask (consciously or unconsciously) that help assess an interracial climate’ temperature. For example, “Is the teacher able to put students at ease?” “Is the teacher able to empathize with and show understanding of the students and convey positive expectations?” (117-118). Questions such as these highlight the aforementioned general aspects of climate. However, a unique ques- tion raised by Henderson that points to a dimension not addressed in communi- cation climate literature asks, “Is the teacher sincerely committed to teaching black students?” (118). This question speaks directly to the attitudes of the teacher (Cose’ “willingness to listen”) and to the teacher’ ability to communicate genuine interest in students of color. That i, in order to build a supportive interracial com- munication climate, the ability to convey interest coupled with some sense of cul- tural understanding is necessary. Henderson (1999) reinforces this point when he proposes that among the many solutions for warming chilly interracial communi- cation climates a key element is “personal involvement that emanates from feel- ings of outrage at the behaviors of hateful people, from the need to communicate grievances, and from the need to get rid of injustices” (182), In short, to commu- nicate to all students, ‘there’ room at the table” (187). Beyond showing a genuine interest, faculty must feel comfortable and be knowledgeable about the various cultures represented among the students they teach. Socha and Beigle (1999) surveyed professors and instructors of Family Communication about their knowledge of African-American and African cultures and about their levels of comfort in communicating this information to mixed- race classes, Results showed low-to-moderate levels of knowledge-ability and low- to-moderate levels of apprehension in communicating information about cultures other than one’s own to multiethnic classes. Yet, faculty reported a very high degree of openness to learning-about African-American and Aftican cultures. Socha and Beigle (1999) also found that Family Communication textbooks presented a limited cultural picture that reinforced whiteness. Cultural represen- tation in texts is an important component of a communication climate. All stu- dents should be able to envision themselves in readings and faculty members’ examples, as well as in their department curricula and extracurricular activities Examples of Good Global Warming ‘To move toward warming chilly interracial communication climates in Commu- nication courses and departments calls for considering the various factors gleaned from the previous discussion of communication climate. in this next section, we highlight examples of some of the major elements of warming chilly interracial 24Socha and Albada 15 communication climates that involve faculty, classroom readings, and program- matic activities. EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY Introductory Communication classes, such as Communication Theory and Inter- personal Communication, are often the venues by which students are first exposed to the field, faculty, and department. As in the Family Communication classroom, for optimal learning to occur all students should be able to envision themselves in the readings, examples, department, and field. The Department of Communica- tion and Broadcasting at East Carolina University (ECU) sought to assess the per- ceptions and experiences of students of color within an introductory Communi- cation Theory course in order to determine the perceived classroom climate. The department also asked students of color to provide feedback on several Interper- sonal Communication textbooks, as well as to relate their evaluations of and sug- gestions for the department and university. The students’ responses were reveal- ing of their psychological climates and the group and organizational climates. The introductory Communication course is the first course that intend- ed Communication majors and minors complete, and it fulfills a social science general-education requirement for all students. Some 480 students per year are exposed to the Communication department through this course; hence, it con- tributes significantly to the perceived climate of the department and typical Com- munication classroom. As stated previously, a chilly climate can be created if the instructor is perceived to be unsupportive or, more extreme, to be sexist or racist. These perceptions are based on the often subtle messages sent in classroom inter- actions and choice of textbook and instructional examples. ‘The textbook employed in the course is one that is adopted at many other universities, Griffin's A First Look at Communication Theory (McGraw-Hill, 2000). ‘Though the students in this course are not assigned additional reading, instruc- tors supplement the course with lecture material, examples, and video clips. This textbook’s content and characteristics were rated by 21 students of color in the course on a seven-point scale (I=strongly agree, 4=neutral, 7=strongly disagree). ‘Their responses follow: 3 Applicable (M=2.8) & Friendly (M-2.9) Informative about people who are different than Tam (M=2.9) W Inclusive of diverse perspectives (M=3.1) W Includes me (M=3.3) Warm (M=3.4) BH Appealing (M=3.5) @ Includes examples/cases about people who are similar to me (M=3.5) 'B Includes research that is relevant to me (M=3.5) Related to my experiences (M-3.5) 25...16 Pedagogical Issues Includes research that employed people who are similar to me (M=4.0) © Informative about people who are similar to me (M=4.3) © Pictures people who are similar to me (M=4.3) On average, the students of color in this course perceived that the textbook had something to offer them (e.., “applicable,” “informative about people who are different”) and was not unapproachable or antagonistic (e.g., “friendly”). Most of their responses fell in the midrange of the scale (between 3 and 5), suggesting a tepid climate. Especially interesting to note is that the items that scored higher (i.e, clos- to “strongly agree”) were general characteristics and in many cases not neces- sarily even related to diversity per se (eg, “friendly,” “applicable,” “appealing,” “warm”); items related specifically to students of color (ie, “informative about people who are similar,” “pictures people who are similar,” and “includes research that employed people who are similar”) received the most-negative assessments. ‘Thus, a friendly or even inviting textbook is not necessarily an inclusive one. “To further determine the importance of textbooks in relation to perceived climates, students responded to similar items for three Interpersonal Communi- cation textbooks: Verderber and Verderber’sInter-Act: Using Interpersonal Conmntt- nication Skills (Wadsworth, 1998), Wood's Interpersonal Comenmunication: Everyday Encounters (Wadsworth, 1999), and Devito's The Hnterpersonal Conmmnication Book (Longman, 2001). Iewas part of a class assignment to read and review these Inter- personal Communication texts. Of these texts, Interpersonal Communication faired best in terms of perceived warmth, applicability, inclusiveness, and visual elernents. ‘One student noticed that “diversity is actually integrated, not made to stand out,” while another student commented, “really enjoyed the ‘Communication Notes and ‘Student Voices’ sections. ‘They provided different perspectives (ie., diversity as well as everyday applications.” However, all three of the Interpersonal Com- munication texts scored higher than Griffin’s Communication Theory textbook, per- haps due to the wider appeal of the topic of interpersonal communication and the narrower focus of such books. That is, Interpersonal Communication textbooks present theories and then delve into various applications and contexts of those the- ories, Communication Theory textbooks often take broad strokes toward the study of communication, At East Carolina University, the Interpersonal Commu nication class is offered in smaller sections than the Communication Theory course; thus, class discussion and small-group exercises can be more readily employed in the former. As a result, student involvement in that material is greater. The students themselves suggested the importance of this classroom characteristic: © “[Instructors should] get more student participation, as there are so many diverse cultures involved.” C1 “The professors answer our questions and give us help. [One] should express yourself by voicing your opinion.” ORSocka and Albada 17 & “[We need] more interactive activiti Students also noticed whether “diversity” stood out or was integrated in the textbooks. Most contemporary authors recognize and address cultural diversity to some extent in their textbooks, yet they sometimes do so in ways that portray cul- tural variations in communication as exceptions to the rule, afterthoughts, or mar- ginal. In such textbooks, communication variations due to culture are often high- lighted in shaded boxes, placed as case studies at the end of the chapter, queried in discussion questions, or summarized in a diversity chapter at the end of the text. ‘The students of color detected those techniques and indicated a preference for the integration of “cultural diversity” within the textbook. They appreciated the inclu- sion of a wide range of minority groups (eg., people with disabilities), and responded positively to textbook features that encouraged interaction or multiple perspectives (e.g., “Student Voices” sections). Moreover, the students of color noticed the difference in a textbook between substantively taking on diversity and superficially taking on diversity. ‘Thatis, including people of color in photographs or using ethnic-sounding names in examples is perhaps an initial step toward inclusion, but comparing different ethnic or racial groups in terms of the theories and concepts is a much larger step. One student of color explained: I would love to see more examples of minority cultures represented in rela- tion to theories and practical experience. The class text tends to present the adult/majority opinion — very sterile. l] must make inferences to apply to my Particular situation. The lecture is more representative of the student per- spective but is lacking in the minority... . [Instructors should] look at per- spectives other than the standard; does this theory hold true for all groups of people? What are the discrepancies? Include everyone in the analysis so there is not a blatant assumption, especially by students who have not expe- rienced diferent cultures. Students also suggested “researchers should include more diverse samples” and “(statistcs] should be broken down by race also, because all information is not relevant.” Ifsuch material is not provided in textbooks, then instructors must supple- ment the course to address racial communication variations. ‘hough most Com- munication instructors supplement their course reading list, this is not always an easy task, for many instructors have not been trained in interracial communication or intercultural communication. Or if they do include readings, such as research on language use, they might neglect nonverbal communication or small-group inte action. However, as suggested by the students above, one way to circumvent this problem is to get the students involved in the material, to be “interactive.” By draw- ing students into the discussion or by asking them to bring relevant material into class or both, instructors can overcome their limitations in training while improv- ing the experience for all students in the classroom. Although the students of color 27.18 Pedagogical Issues did not always agree on the solution, they provided additional suggestions for improving their experiences in the Communication classroom: 1 “{Instructors] should talk about cultural differences more, ... Not really all cultures, but just black and white because that’ the most ‘hot’ topic. Explain what makes us so different as far as how we communicate.” 8 “When students/faculty/staff think of minorities, they always think of African Americans . ., maybe when {they] talk about culture, [they should) be more specific instead of so general.” 1 “Use examples. Ask questions inclusive of communication in non- European, American, or East Asian cultures.” “Our lectures as well as examples have opened my eyes to different cul- tures and have also helped me to relate to my own. I think asking for special treatment would go against everything that we have been work- ing towards; however, I think we should be included in some examples other than being shown in stereotypical roles.” “I like the fact that my professor shows minority (positive) clips for examples as well as others.” @ “Use more media directed towards people of color.” 1 “Classes could include more culrural opportunities in our projects.” 1 “Lwould like co know more about people of color who have made great accomplishments in the area of communication.” “I feel the Communication and Broadcasting department should express more openly that these areas of education are not only for peo- ple of light skin shades. .. . In the beginning of each semester, express to the class that Communication is a very diverse field.” As suggested in the communication climate literature, students of color are look- ing for demonstrated commitment and personal involvement from their faculry, and this commitment and involvement comes through in our textbook selection, pedagogical tools, and classroom interaction. However, the students also pointed. to issues outside of the classroom when assessing its intercultural climate. Specif- ically, they were also assessing the intercultural communication climate of the department. In the organizational literature, Morrison and Von Glinow (1990) delineat- ed three phases of workplace development in terms of cultural diversity. First- order affirmative action organizations are in compliance with the legally mandat- ed racial diversity requirements only. Second-order affirmative action organiza- tions are in compliance with legal mandates as well, but they focus more on sup- porting and retaining people of color. Multicultural organizations go further in 28 a0Socha and Albada 19 this pursuit and recognize that racial, gender, or cultural diversity is an asset to an organization. Cox (1991) argued that a multicultural organization is characterized by fall structural and informal integration of ethnic minorities, absence of preju- dice and discrimination, low levels of intergroup conflict, and a pluralistic form of acculturation; that is, that “both minority and majority culture members adopt some norms of the other group”(35). The students of color in the Communica- tion ‘Theory course raised issues that approximate the concepts of structural and. informal integration and pluralistic forms of acculturation. For instance, students recognized problems with structural integration at the university and departmental levels: i “Nothing can be done because the school is not that diverse.” 1 “(The university should] have professors and/or administrators of color present in abundance on campus.” “Asa student of color, I am often discouraged at the number of [African Americans] that are in my classes. In some cases, Iam the only black person in the entire class [Ie] often makes me feel uncomfortable. Also, why’is there only one African-American Communication teacher?” An East Carolina University report on diversity, released in March 2000 by the Office of Research, Assessment and ‘Testing, depicted an environment in which students of color were less satisfied socially and academically and possessed lower feelings of belonging than did white students. It seemed likely that contri butions to their dissatisfaction were their experiences with prejudice and discrim- ination. According to the report, 38 percent of African-American students and 58 percent of white students reported hearing peers make racially offensive remarks at some point. Among all students, 16 percent reported hearing racially offensive remarks by faculty, staff, or administrators once or twice; 6 percent reported hear- ing such remarks three or more times. More than 40 percent of African-Ameri- can students said that they felt discriminated against at the university, and 73 per- cent of them were likely to perceive race as the reason behind the discrimination. Although most students (85 percent) were reasonably comfortable beftiending an “other,” they were less comfortable dating outside of their race (31 percent). Moreover, 60 percent of the African-American students and 40 percent of the white students characterized their interracial friendships as superficial. cis, perhaps, not surprising then that both the department and university were given an average performance ranking in addressing cultural diversity, and a fukewarm-to-warm climate assessment by the students of color surveyed for that project. Notwithstanding, the students noticed the university’ recent efforts to improve the climate on campus. Said one student, “Many forums on campus host ed by minority groups and the university have been excellent. The Coffee in the Kitchen project is extremely beneficial to all students. I also enjoy presentations 2920. Pedagogical Issues by the cultural awareness committee of the student union.” This student was referring to the Chancellor’ Initiative on Race — a year-long, collaborative effort that resulted in art, music, literature, speakers, and roundtable discussions and included faculty, staf, students, and community members. The activities afforded many opportunities for faculty to increase their knowledge and training and to demonstrate their commitment and involvement. High-profile speakers offered training opportunities for faculty and stu- dents, For instance, ECU was visited by John Marshall, first African-American director of the U.S. Marshals Service; Jane Elliott, a nationally known speaker on prejudice; Dr. Bertie Berry, stand-up comic and expert on diversity; Dr. Mary Frances Berry, chair of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission and professor of Amer- ican social thought at University of Pennsylvania; and Dr. Christopher Edley, sen ior adviser to President Clinton on race and a Harvard law professor. And “Diver- sity Yes!” was a series of brochures by the ECU Office of Equal Employment and Opportunity and the Department of Human Resources, with specific aims to increase faculty and staff knowledge on diversity. Arts, culture, and holiday celebrations offered additional opportunities for faculty and students to get involved. Included were a performance by the Thespi- ans of Diversity, a Pow Wow, a showcase of a gospel choir, a jazz. concert honor- ing Duke Ellington, and a multicultural holiday celebration, Other awareness events dealt with “Living With the ‘Other” (adjusting to campus living), AIDS, sexual assault, Latino heritage, intercultural student leadership and peer mentor- ing, and racial profiling in the media. Future projects include the Internet Diver- sity Experience, a health initiative, and outreach efforts to local schools and other agencies. Finally, the three-phase “Coffee in the Kitchen” project recruited stu- dents, faculty, staf, and community members for focus groups and training on his- torical and present-day race-related issues. ‘The aforementioned events reinforce the notion of a systemic effort within an organization to become multicultural, as suggested in the organizational liter- ature, We, as Communication professors and departments, are well-positioned to become involved in such efforts, and can improve the experience of students of color by doing so. Faculty involvement in these events can broaden faculty know!- edge and training, which can inform their teaching. Encouraging student partici- pation supplements course content and represents more active learning. Overall curriculum in Communication classrooms can be greatly enhanced by building such events into student assignments, For instance, students could help to create publications for the events, write for magazines or campus newspapers, critique the speakers, conduct their own research on race, or take on a race-related issue in a campus communication campaign. Assignments might ask students to reflect, upon communication within their own culture or to learn about communication, in another culture through community outreach projects or interpersonal interactions 30Socha and Albada 24 ‘Communication faculty can further demonstrate their commitment to these issues by becoming personally involved in campus events as participants, planners, and critics. For instance, Interpersonal Communication scholars can help students discuss “superficial” interracial relationships; Media scholars could take on stereo- typical images in the news or entertainment programming. Other strategies might include inviting Communication experts on race or diversity to campus or class, as guest lecturers or to team-teach classes. Finally, for climate warming to take place, the efforts must be backed fully by “management.” Thus, departmental policies, course offerings, and faculty recruitment efforts must support efforts by individual faculty members. In the Department of Communication and Broadcasting, for instance, we have adopted a language discrimination policy that simply states that we support the use of inclusive language by faculty and students in our classrooms. However, as seen in the students’ comments, we must continue to improve our efforts if we are to te and develop into a multicultural organization. warm the cl OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY Old Dominion University (considesed Virginia’ international university) under- takes various formal and informal efforts co create warm, welcoming communica~ tion climates for all students. Similar to ECU, Old Dominion University (ODU) offers many programs for students and faculty targeted toward the goal of creat- ing a learning environment that not only is welcoming but also values and cele- brates diversity. (Some of these efforts can be viewed on the University’s website at hetp://web.odu.edu/commthea.) For example, the Department of Communica- tion and Theatre Arts runs an annual University-wide film festival that has been focusing on diversity in film and television, All faculty are supported to travel and y abroad. Faculty can apply for fuinds to receive specific training in intercal- tural communication at places such as the Summer Institute for Intercultural Communication, in Portland, Oregon. Faculty can also apply for monies from the College of Arts and Letters to work on internationalizing their courses, ‘Among ODUS efforts are two successful activities unique to its Department of Communication, The initiatives might not immediately seem important tools for establishing warm, welcoming intercultural climates, but over time they have proven to be vital. First, the department supports an Undergraduate Teaching Assistant (UTA) program, in which undergraduates are provided coursework and experience in university teaching (see Socha 1998). Over the years, African- American undergraduates have been strongly encouraged to participate in che program (and many have). These teaching assistants become visible role models forall students, but for African-American students in particular, UTA are visions of success. These best and brightest students have gone on to graduate school, and 3122 Pedagogical Issues some now occupy faculty positions at universities. ‘The other subd but significant example is the effort taken in the depart- ment to help all Communication majors discover their personal intellectual inter- ests in the discipline of Communication Studies through multiple courses in ‘Communication Research Methods. Students in undergraduate Communication Research Methods courses are encouraged to explore their own ideas by propos- ing and undertaking original research studies. Over the years, students of color in these methods courses invariably have chosen to explore racism, prejudice, and other communication issues of societal and personal significance. ‘The import of these research projects stretches well beyond the sequence of courses. For example, one Old Dominion University alum from Malaysia later went ‘on to examine intercultural embarrassment in her M.A. thesis (see Ganesan 1998) and is pursuing a Ph.D. in Communication focusing on culture. An African-Amer- ican alum, who recently earned a Ph.D. in Higher Education, returned to share with the Communication faculty his first published article on the relationship between black urban communities and universities (see Rowley 2000). The depart- ment is proud to have had a hand in Professor Ganesan’s and Professor Rowley’s development. : “These concrete, but often invisible examples of making room at the table for a wide range of people and ideas are among the hallmarks of a welcoming commu- nication environment that fosters genuine dialogue among diverse human beings. Conclusion It is clear that feeling welcomed, included, and genuinely respected goes a long way toward bridging the gaps of cultural diversity. This essay has emphasized that the communication climate is a subtle but potent factor in the success of all stu- dents, but particularly students of color. Faculty who show interest in ethnie cul- ture, read beyond the boundaries of their own culture of origin and make certain that their students do so as well, and most important communicate their interest and understanding can serve as empowering forces for students of color. Note 1, One of us (Socha) was supported, in part, through the ODU Office of International Programs and his University Professor Award funds to travel to South Africa with a dele- gation of faculty from the National Communication Association. This experience was incredibly valuable in helping to bridge the knowledge gap between American and South African Communication Studies faculty. References Andrews, PH. (1983). “Creating a Supportive Climate for Teacher Growth: Developing Graduate Students as Teachers.” Conmmnumication Quarterly 31: 259-265. Cose, E. (1993), The Rage of a Privileged Class, New York: HarperPerennial. AgeSocha and Albada 23 Cox, TH. (1991). “The Mukicultural Organization.” Academy of Management Executives 5: 3447, Ellis, D., and A. Fisher. (1994). Small Group Decision Making. New York: McGraw-Hill Falcione, R.L. (1974). “Communication Climate and Satisfaction With Immediate Supervision.” Journal of Applied Contmrunication Research 2: 13-20. Fink, EL. and S. Chen. (1995). “A Galileo Analysis of Organizational Climate.” Haman Communication Research 21: 494-521 Follert, V. (1980). “Communication Climate: A Theoretical Framework for Accessibility.” Journal of Applied Communication Research 8: 01-100. Ganesan, P. (1998). Commrienication to Reduce Embarrassment Between Individualistic and Calectivstc Cultures. Norfolk, VA: Old Dominion University, Department of Humanities. Gibb, J. (1960). “Defensive Communication.” Journal of Comneniation V1: 141-148. Hall, RM, and BR. Sandler. (1982). Project on the Status and Education of Women. ‘Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges. —— . (1984), Out ofthe Classroom: A Chilly Campus Climate for Women? Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges. Hays, E.R. (1970). “Ego-Threatening Classroom Communication: & Factor Analysis of Student Perceptions.” Speech Teacher 19: 43-49. Henderson, G. (1999). Oter Sous to Keep: Black/White Relations in America. Yarmouth, ME Intercultural Press. : ‘Morrison, AM., and M.A. Von Glinow: (1990). “Women and Minorities in Manage ment.” American Prychologie 45: 200-208. Office of Research Assessment and Testing. (March 2000). Diversity at ECU: Student Perspeatves, Greenville, NC: East Carolina University Rosenfeld, 1.B. (1983). “Communication Climate and Coping Mechanisms in the College Classroom.” Communication Education 32: 167-174. and MW. Jarrard. (1985). “The Effects of Female and Male College Professors ‘on Students’ Descriptions of Classroom Climate.” Conentonication Education 34: 205-213. Rowley, L.L. (2000). “The Relationship Berween Universities and Black Urban ‘Communities: The Clash of ‘Tivo Culkares.” he Urban Review 32(1): 45-65. Socha, T: (1998). “Development of an Undergraduate ‘Teaching Assistant Program in Communication.” Journal ofthe Asociation for Communication Administration oss and J. Beigle. (1999). “Toward Improving Life at the Crossroads: Family ‘Communication Education and Multicuitural Competence.” In Conrmuniaation, Race, and Family: Exploring Commeanication in Black, White, and Biracial Familie, edited by TJ. Socha and R. Diggs, pp. 209-227. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, ‘Trickerr, E.J., and R.H. Moos. (1973). “The Social Environment of Junior High and High School Classrooms.” Journal of Educational Peychalogy 65: 93-102. CiColoring the Communication Experience Using Personal Narratives to (Re)define Success of Students of Color in Communication Olga Idriss Davis, Jacqueline M. Martinea, and Thomas K. Nakayama s authors, we bring different backgrounds and experiences together for our .work on this essay. As an African American, a Mexican American, and an Asian American who teach and conduct research in performance studies, inter- cultural communication, and rhetoric, respectively, we bring an array of differ- ences together in our professional lives at Arizona State University. Despite these many differences, however, we have come to recognize certain common circum stances within the Communication discipline generally that we think discourage students of color from continuing in Communication courses. In this essay we shall explore these circumstances and offer suggestions to remedy them, specifi- cally focusing on the advantages of using personal narratives as pedagogy. Our objective is to help create a curricular and attitudinal context that can address the concems and needs of students of color. Moreover, we shall argue that by creat ing such a context we improve the curriculum and discipline of Communication itself. There are several ways in which the Communication curriculum tends to exclude the experiences and concerns of students of color. One of the most seri- ous problems is its tendency to reduce “communication” to mean information located within a narrow context of the presumed norms of American culture, which is white. Moreover, few Communication courses take seriously the student’s experiential knowledge of communication, community, and culture — a differ- ence that is particularly relevant for students of color. In Public Speaking classes, for example, the general presumption is that students shall learn to speak within a frame that values certain kinds of knowledge to the exclusion of others, What counts as evidence, what constitutes arguments and effective organization are all culturally specific to a white caltural logic. With these presumptions in place, communication itself is reduced to a tool that is disconnected from the particular cultural norms lived and experienced by students of color but not by white sta- dents. Hence, white students more easily accept and identify with the frames pre~ sented in the Public Speaking course than do students of color. 34 24Davis, Martinez, and Nakayama 25 A more radical approach would foreground that students already speak in a variety of public and private contexts and have specific cultural and experiential knowledge about effective communication within those contexts. Rather than impose a narrow and limited standard of “effective” communication, such an approach would examine the knowledge and understanding that students already possess in their home communities and cultures. ‘This would shift the context from a presumed standard of public oratory to the fact of public and private speak- ing as it is already present in students’ lives. A similar situation exists in Intercultural Communication classes, where the emphasis is on the correct imitation of the daily habits of communication within a given culture. The presumption here is that successful intercultural communi- cation is accomplished by learning the dominant norms of communication behav- ior of a given culture so as to be able to imitate them in actual interaction with per- sons from that culture. A more radical approach to intercultural communication would foreground that every person is in-cultured; and rather than teach a ready set of culturally specific communication behaviors, it would examine the ways in which their own cultures are already present in students’ communication behav- iors. With this approach to Intercultural Communication, students must examine the ways in which their own conscious experience is itself already driven by cul- ture, To our predominantly white American students, such an approach is shock- ing, because American culture is individualistic and conceives of persons as autonomous. American (white) culture itself would have us believe that we are not, in-cultured. Recognizing how everyone is in-cultured creates a much better foun- dation for understanding across cultures. ‘The communication experience in many of our university courses is based on the perspective of Western logic and white American standards of normative human communication behavior. Such perspectives, whether intentional or not, negate the historical and lived experiences of students of color. One way of color- ing the communication experience is to use personal narratives so as to fore- ground the experiential knowledge that students of color and others outside of the white mainstream bring to their classroom study. Coloring the experience of com- munication challenges the dominant notions and assumptions about why students of color fail to participate successfully and achieve as Communication majors, and instead highlights the ways that the Communication curriculum-has failed stu- dents of color. We argue that by coloring the communication experience, our gate- way courses become a context of shared experience that embellishes, enhances, and enriches for all students the Communication major’s success. In so doing, the gateway courses, irrespective of their titles, are transformed in ways that redefine the Communication classroom as a safe space for interrogating cultural norms and therefore also transforming lives. 3526 Pedagogical Issues Engaging Students of Color and Transforming Communication Central to recruiting and retaining students of color in our gateway courses are the notions of engagement and transformation. By engagement, we mean creating a curriculum that teaches theory by talking from community. The historical, as well as contemporary, meaning of belonging to a community has tremendous signifi- cance for members of marginalized communities. Students of color are no excep- tion. Communities are places of safety, but also rich sources of vernacular knowl- edge that give life to cultural identities. In our experiences with white students, community has little meaning to them. They prefer to stress the importance of individuality and autonomy. The discipline of Communication Studies has not been able to reflect these profound differences in the ways that people see them- selves in relation to communities. Our relationships with communities form an inherent part of the complex relationships between culture and communication. ‘The predominant norms of mainstream (white) American culture create an ori- entation away from recognizing this key aspect of communication particularly as itis lived in the lives of students of color. By transformation, we refer to the ways in which narrative discourse can be a liberating, consciousness-raising experience of locating self in the meaning- making process of being in the world, and conversely of recognizing culture’ meaning-making influence upon us. Because the histories of many cultural groups are not taught as part of the national story — “The History” of the United States as opposed to the histories of the United States — learning to open space for these muted narratives is central to a different consciousness and understanding about the world. Black feminist scholar Barbara Christian explains the role of personal narrative as epistemological in cultural experiences of the other: “People of color have always theorized — but in forms quite different from the Westen form of abstract logic. ... Our theorizing ...is often in narrative forms, in the stories we create. .. in dynamic rather than fixed ideas” (1989: 336). One of the major reasons that students of color seldom become Communi- cation majors is because they see communication theory as not being rooted in the cultural practices of their everyday lives. Other Communication scholars such as Lawrence Grossberg (1997), in his book Bringing It All Back Home, see the oper- ations of hegemony in our discipline, and reveal the ways in which Communica- tion Studies operates as a master narrative. The lived experiences of students of color are often obfuscated in Communication courses, because their narratives are unheard and they are seen as inarticulate in critically expressing the happenings of their world. Contrary to that notion is the challenge of finding ways to create identification with and among our students of color while deconstructing the practice of hegemonic curricula. Through personal or experiential knowledge, students of color are engaged in talking about community and the identities and QnDavis, Martinez, and Nakayama 27 self-understandings they generate. This sort of engagement becomes the training ground, if you will, for personal and social transformation. A liberatory pedagogy in Communication courses can offer ways in which students deal with ethical con- cerns grounded in an epistemology that provides 4 practical process for change including experience, reflection, judgment, and action (James 1993). Performance and Context in the Communication Experience of Students of Color ‘The notion of the classroom as a safe space for redefining success of students of color is a vital concept to consider. “Safe space,” a term used by black feminist scholar Patricia Hill Collins (1991), refers to the space of liberatory struggle, which values marginalized social realities. This liberatory space opens the possi- bility for negotiating life performances and everyday social practices. ‘The Com- munication classroom can be such a space for success of students of color by offer ing a context for invention, discovery, knowledge, and meaning-making in the cul- tural discourse of everyday life. The classroom offers a dynamic site of reflexivity between context and power relations in personal narrative. As several critical educators and black feminist scholars argue, the critical classroom provides interesting ways to rethink issues of identity and subject for- mation (Freire 1996; hooks 1990; James 1993; McLaren 1994). Ogbu (1999) and others suggest that a critical pedagogy in which the classroom transforms the dis~ cursive and institutional formations that reproduce white, patriarchal, and Anglo supremacy is a classroom in which students are engaged in creating a culture of change. Creating a culture of change requires a recognition of the ways in which we are in-cultured and how we therefore perpetuate culture in our communica tion practices. Once we recognize how we perpetuate culture in our own com- munication practices, we then have the capacity to alter the terms in which we perpetuate culture and our location within it, Change refers to challenging traditional humanism, or the master narrative, which embraces only the cultural values of white, Western, male hegemony ~ a culture wherein the teacher is the omniscient, rather than the catalyst, for the exchange of meaning-making among students and teacher. Effective change that promotes success of students of color comes from students on the margins who resist the master narrative with rhetorical and performative strategies other than the master’s tools (Lorde 1984) found under the rubric of argumentation, empiricism-positivism, and so on. In order for students to see a difference in our discipline, they must first see a discipline that reflects their culture, experience, and activism for change. The Communication classroom that engages in performative strategies of resistance holds academic authority accountable when the cultures of, students of color are ignored. Thus, a redefinition of the classroom and of the 37...28 Pedagogical Issues objective of Communication curriculum encourages a new vision for gateway courses to embrace students of color. Personal Narrative as a Construct for Success of Students of Color Its no revelation that personal narrative is a viable methodological tool for the study of communication (Langellier 1989; Peterson and Langellier 1997). According to Carli (1998), “personal narrative has the potential to transcend all ‘quantitative and qualitative research methods, and stand alone, giving epistemo- logical information and insight into the communication process” (232). While tra- ditional scholars might argue against the efficacy of personal narrative, itis essen- tial to embrace its value for the success of students of color. As explained by Hantzis (1995), the personal narrative calls into question the relationship between identity and experience. Grossberg (1997) argues for a more experientially based paradigm within which to analyze the ordinary and extraordinary ways people use, challenge, and interact with culture in their daily lives. The dialectical tension between the personal narrative of lived experience and the master narrative of the discipline establishes a relationship of oppression, because the master narrative delegitimates the lived experiences of people of color. It simultaneously creates resistance, because students of color recognize (even preconsciously) that there is no space for their own experiences and cultures to be recognized, much less uti- lized as a pedagogical resource. Through the performance of narrating lived experience, knowledge becomes a sharing of understanding rather than an expression of ego involvement (Carli 1998). The personal narrative is liberating discourse — offering students of color a space to write their voices into existence, to own the marginalized, con- tested spaces of race, class, vender, ethnicity, or sexuality. Narrative as a liberating and transformative text provides the context of ownership that students of color need in order to feel connected to our discipline. Experiential Knowledge as Pedagogy Personal narratives are gaining more recognition as important communicative modes for research and teaching, Yet, many teachers shy away from featuring per- sonal narratives as a primary mode of classroom work because of the difficulty of evaluating personal narrative writing. As teachers, itis obviously inappropriate for us to evaluate the content of a student’ experience. Some students will have had life experiences that give them greater insight about cheir own personal, social, and culeural lives. Others will not. Some students will have a more natural literary style thatiis well suited to personal narrative work. Others will not. As teachers, we will necessarily relate better to the experiences of some students over others. None 38Davis, Martinez, and Nakayama 29 of these differences is a legitimate basis for evaluating the personal narrative pro- duced by students in our lasses. Still another set of problems exists with personal narrative writing and per- forming as a pedagogical tool: the tendency to think that “because I experienced it this way, itis true.” If we allow such a notion to remain present in our classroom work, we will create a context in which students are fighting for the accuracy and validity of their lived experiences. Despite these very serious problems, we advocate the use of personal narra- tives as a tool for foregrounding experiential knowledge in the Communication classroom. If we approach communication as something that is embodied and in- cultured, then we can shift our taken-for-granted notion that personal narratives are a unique self-expression and instead accept the idea that what students actual- ly come to experience is itself a manifestation of their particular location in a cul- tural, social, and historical time and place. The “truth” of each student's narrative is thus not a competing reality with others’ but one that begs the questions “How did I get here?” “How did I come to say and experience this?” Rather than simply assign personal causes and effects to their experiences, we can investigate the very cultural, social, and historical terrain in which certain experiences have come to be what they are. ‘The writing of personal narratives themselves requires that students engage in a process of sharing their self-understanding. In that process, teachers encour- aged students to lessen the investment of their egos in the actual narrative they produce and instead explore their community-based commonalities that validate their individual realities and shared social locations. In addition, students can be encouraged to explore a number of different accounts of their experiences. By rewriting one another's narratives, students explore the other cultural influences that the authors themselves might miss. Liberatory Pedagogy in Practice One example of this notion of liberatory pedagogy is demonstrated in a Perfor- ‘mance Studies course at Arizona State University taught by one of us (Davis) that explores the performative nature of black female slave narratives. The notion of engagement created space for discussing the historical and contemporary contri- butions of black woment liberation struggles. Readings about the 19-century life of black women stirmulated and challenged students to expand their experiential base. Reflections were expressed in journals, through essay papers, on field trips to museums exhibiting historical images of black women, and in small-group work where insights were shared. Considering dominant discursive structures and noms of the period, students wrote personal narratives from the perspective of personae in the pre-emancipatory period of American history. The critical writ- ing of personal narrative experience was a way to inform, challenge, and resist the 39.30 Pedagogical Issues nexus of racist-(hetero)sexist-classist ideology of contemporary American thought and action to which the students had become victims or perpetrators or both. Through performance they learned about the self as a communication activist for change and educated audience member — experimenting with creating ways to redefine worlds freedom, and liberation struggles of not only the 19th century but also, more important for their world, the 2st century. Finally, ethical action came about by judging master narratives enculturated within institutionalized constructs of power and control. Students of color as well as white students located themselves in the continuum of history through the meaning of personal narrative. ‘Transformation occurred as students re- encountered themselves, not as Communication majors and minors merely enrolled in a course, but as historically situated selves engaging and interacting in human experience in which they entered into the social reality of racism, (hetero)sexism, and classism, As a result, performance through personal narrative offered a space for each student to interrogate his or her social, cultural, and ethical responsibili- ties within the context of social relations of power while critically assessing the dialectic of social justice. It is our contention that the practice of personal narra tive in Communication’ gateway courses can offer a way to engage and transform students of color. By making space for self-reflection, for thinking and organizing to resist oppression, and for demonstrating communication as a pedagogy for self- development, we encourage students of color to become majors based on inclu- sive ethics and an active commitment to community liberation. What's at Stake for Students of Color and for the Communication Discipline? ‘The history of Communication is not one that reflects sustained interrogation and understanding of how disempowered and marginalized cultural groups might speak and be heard. The strategic selection of the “roots” of rhetoric in ancient Greece reinforces a focus on dominant groups and domination. Plato and Aristo- te, for example, came from privileged classes and did not reflect upon how “oth- ers” might engage rhetoric. The study of public speaking through the 19th and much of the 20th century continued to focus on the ways that white men might speak. It is only very recently that we as a discipline have turned sustained atten- tion to the communication experiences of white women and, subsequently, even less attention to experiences of people of caior. ‘The contemporary Communication curriculum needs to tum its attention more seriously to the realities of living in an increasingly multicultural society and global community. Atthe heart of this communication problematic is the question of how we might listen to others with very different cultural experiences and real- ities. Very lite research has been done on how white people, for example, listen to people of color. Donald Rubin’s (1998) studies on how white students hear anDavis, Martinez, and Nakayama 31 accents from instructors with Asian features are only the beginning of the kind of, exploration that we need to understand the ways that whites invoke communica tion strategies to dismiss the voices of others. Marsha Houston’ (1997) work on white women and black women opens up important discussions about differences, in communication styles that thwart understanding. Both authors reveal ways in which the normative (white) conditions of communication preclude genuine understanding across cultural differences. While we advocate for the use of personal narratives in the Communication curriculum, we also recognize that not everyone will listen to the voices of others. This is the central quandary of communication in a multicultural society. Yet, per sonal narratives offer a significant first step in helping us to begin understanding the role that communication might play, as well as the problems to be confront- ed, in the bridging of cultural differences. So long as the Communication cur- riculum focuses on the assumption that our study is race-blind, we reinforce an assumption that communicators are white. Whether in interpersonal interaction or the public-speaking context, we make a serious error if we continue to ignore the reality of cultural diversity. Not only do we underprepare our white students for life in the 21st century, but we communicate to our students of color that ‘Communication Studies is not for them. Students of color must see that a Communication major offers liberatory strategies for creating identity and performing change. It is imperative that they see the study of human communication as a way to talk to and teach one another about the different social lives and cultural experiences each of us brings to our interactions. In this way, the discipline is advocating something much like what Maria Lugones describes as “world’-traveling. As she puts it, affirm this practice as skilful, creative, rich, enriching, and, given certain cir- cumstances, as a loving way of being and living. | recognize that much of our traveling is done unwilflly to hostile white/Anglo ‘worlds.".. . Racism has a vested interest in obscuring and devaluing the complex skils involved init. (1989: 275) ‘We all have to start teaveling across cultural worlds. The Communication cur- riculum is one place where we should begin. References Carilli, T. (1998). “Verbal Promiscuity or Healing Ar? Writing the Creative/Performa- tive Personal Narrative.” In The Funure of Performance Studies: Visions and Revisions, edited by S. Dailey, pp. 232-236. Annandale, VA: National Communication Asso- ciation. Christian, B. (1989), “The Race for Theory.” In Making Face, Making Soul/Haciendo Caras: Creative and Critical Perspectives by Women of Color; edited by G. Anzaldiia, pp. 335- 345. San Francisco: Aunt Lute Foundation. Collins, PH. (1991), Black Feminist Thought, New York: Routledge.32_ Pedagogical Issues Freire, P. (1996). Pedagogy of the Oppresed. New York: Continuum. Grossberg, L. (1997). Bringing It Al Back Howe: Essays on Cultural Studies. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Hantais, D.M. (1995). “Performing Experience(s)/Shittings to Self.” Paper presented at the Speech Communication Association Convention, San Antonio, Texas. Houston, M. (1997). “When Black Women Talk With White Women: Why Dialogues Are Difficult” In Our Voices: Esorys in Culture, Ethnicity, and Conensencation, edited by A. Gonzalez, M. Houston, and V. Chen, pp. 187-194. Los Angeles: Roxbury. : hooks, b. (1990). Yearning: Race, Gender, and Cultural Polis. Boston: South End Press. James, J. (1993). “Teaching Theory, Talking Community.” In Spirit, Space & Survival: Afican American Women in White) Academe, edited by J. James and R. Farmer, pp. 118-135, New York: Routledge. Langellier, K. (1989). “Personal Narratives: Perspectives on Theory and Research.” Zéxt cand Performance Quarterly 94): 243-276. Lorde, A. (1984). Sister Outsider’ Essays and Speeches. New York: The Crossing Press. Lugones, M. (1989). “Playfulness, ‘World’-Traveling, and Loving Perception.” In Wormen, Knaledge, and Reality: Explorations in Feminist Pilosopby, edited by A. Garry and M. Pearsall, pp. 275-290. New York: Routledge. Mel.aren, P. (1994). Life in Schools, White Plains, NY: Longman. Oxgbu, J. (1999). “Beyond Language: Ebanies, Proper English, and Identity in Black- ‘American Speech Community.” American Educational Research 36(2): 147-162. Peterson, E., and K. Langeller. (197). “The Politics of Personal Narrative Methodology.” Test and Performance Quarterly 17: 135-152. Rubin, D.L. (1998), “Help! My Professor (or Doctor or Boss) Doesn't Talk English!” In Readings in Culteral Contests, edited by J.N. Martin, ‘EK. Nakayama, and LA. Flores, pp. 149-160. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield. 42Difference Is Not Disorder Diagnosis in the Basic Communication Course Cheryl D. Gunter ‘mong their responsibilities, instructors of Basic Communication courses (for y purposes, those in which students learn to research, outline, write, deliv- et, critique, and analyze the audience for various forms of public presentations) must formulate evaluation criteria for a diverse assortment of learning tasks. That formulation of what constitutes successful completion should be grounded in a consideration of students’ presenting communication patterns. Some students will present with what the Communication Disorders discipline considers “standard” dialects; some with what are considered “nonstandard” dialects (communication dif ferences. Still other students will present with communication patterns inconsis- tent with either standard or nonstandard dialectal variations — that is, communi cation disorders. Any time a student communicates in a manner different from the “cultural standard,” the instructor’ first task is to discern whether that student’ communication pattern is a diference or a disorder: The nexe task is to formulate an appropriate response to that pattern in evaluation of student work, by imple- menting procedures and criteria that accept variations in communication pattern within the parameters of excellence. : Obviously, not all students who present with communication differences or disorders will be students of color; and not all students of color will present with a difference or disorder. But some likely will Iris for the benefit of those students that I offer below ideas for differentiating between communication differences and disorders, then discuss some issues that arise related to appropriate evaluation of student performance. The essay’s discussion is organized on three key questions: ‘What is the communication status of the student? How could the presence of a communication difference affect the performance of that student in the Basic Communication course? and What model of evaluation of student performance is now in place in the Basic Communication course? 1. What Is the Student's Communication Status? As an initial step, the instructor of a Basic Communication course should be able to compare and contrast the central traits of the variations of communication with which students of color might present: standard American dialect, nonstandard American dialect (communication difference), and communication disorder. 43 3334. Pedagogical Issues DIALECT Each person who learns a language, such as American English, learns a particular variation of rules of that language, referred to as a dialect (Owens 1992). Some per- sons with dialects have learned just the one language, the rules of which have been influenced by particular social, personal, and residential factors. This describes the dialects spoken by students for whom English is a first language. Some persons with dialects have learned more than one language, and to the influences on their first language have been added influence(s) of the second (or more) language(s); this would describe the English dialect of a nonnative student. Students of color could present with dialects of either variation, depending on their individual life circumstances. Linguistic and Paralinguistic Aspects. A person's dialect influences mul- tiple linguistic aspects of communication, An accent is the influence of 2 dialect on the production of speech sounds. But an accent is just one example. Another aspect is topic choice; that is, different dialects can vary in their parameters for which topics are appropriate for discussion in particular contexts and with particular con- versational partners. A dialect can also influence word choice; for instance, students with different dialects could refer to the same item, person, or incident using an assortment of different terms. Sentence construction can vary among dialects, in terms of the order of modifiers and referents. A dialect also can influence narra- tive production; that is, a preference for topical order versus temporal order, and the emphasizing of various aspects of the narrative to the relative exclusion of athers. And, of course, a dialect can influence swial interactions, affecting the directness of ‘comments and the distribution of conversational turns. A dialect also can influence paralinguistic aspects of communication. Dialects vary in their rate of speech, daration of words, intonation of voice stress of words, and other temporal parameters of communication. Nonlinguistic Aspects. A dialect influences nonlinguistic aspects of com- munication too. One area of influence is kinesicy that is, body movements and facial positions of students with particular dialects could reflect their preference for a particular fevel of exuberance or expression. Another is praxemis, or the inti- ‘mate, personal, and social distances students maintain as reflections of their values toward relative status and relationships. And chronemicr, or attitudes toward time. Even the decor and other visible structures that students impose on their irame- diate environments can reflect dialectal influences. ‘STANDARD AND NONSTANDARD DIALECTS Instructors also should differentiate between standard and nonstandard dialects of a language. Within American English specifically, particular variations of the lan- guage have been designated as “standard” dialects. The genesis of such standard dialects, as Hegde (1991) notes, can be as the version of language of the people a4 AaGunter 35 who live in prestigious geographical areas, the people of a particular race, the peo- ple of a particular educational level, the people of wealth, the people in power, or even the most people — or some combination of these and additional factors. “These “standard” dialects have been presented in textbooks as the formal or ideal variations of a language. Other variations of the language have been designated as “nonstandard” (also known as vernacular) dialects, Among native speakers of English, there are dialects based on social factors (such as economic level) and personal factors (such as educational evel), as well as those based on residential factors. Some well-known dialects are midevestern, south ‘western, southeastern, and northeastern (based on broad areas) and Boston, Appalachi- «an, New York, and Bayou (based on more localized areas). Then, among speakers of English as a second language, there are the numerous dialects that result from the influences on English of various African, Latino, Asian, and European first languages. COMMUNICATION DIFFERENCES As instructors become more familiar with the patterns of particular standard and nonstandard dialects, they should reflect on the interpretation imposed on the presence of such patterns. During the describing and differentiating of various dialects, some authors have equated “nonstandard” with “substandard” and admonished instructors to view nonstandard dialects as conditions to be correct- ed (Warren-Leubecker and Bohannon 1985); that view remains prevalent in some circles. But in others, the discussion of dialects has evolved, resulting in a recon- sideration of “nonstandard” dialects as communication differences. That is, students who present with nonstandard dialects are viewed as possessing language patterns that fall within the parameters of norma! communication. For example, Edwards (1991) asserts that a “deficit” view of nonstandard language is incorrect, and that diverse variations of a langaage that have developed within language communities all can be considered accurate and capable of expression of communication func- tions. To reject this “deficit” view is crucial in our quest to provide the best possi- ble conditions for success for students of color. To the degree that America’ increasing diversity is reflected in college enrollments, instructors of the Basic Communication course can expect to encounter increasing numbers of students who present with communication dif- ferences. According to the 1990 United States Census, the native-born population is some 12 percent African-American, 8 percent Latino-American, 3 percent Asian-American, and 1 percent Native-American (some of whom likely speak in dialects considered “nonstandard”); an additional 20 million persons are not native born (and likely leaned English as.a second language). Overall, some 14 percent of the population has a dominant language other than English. Instructors would be well-advised to become familiar with the central traits 4536 Pedagogical Issues of the dialects of both native and nonnative speakers of English. Increasing num- bers of publications exist documenting the distinctive traits of particular dialects. Houlit and Howard (1997) and McLaughlin (1998) provide clear and concise overviews of the central traits of common dialects of native speakers of English. Descriptions of Spanish-influenced English are available from Kayser (1995) and Taylor (1986). Other authors describe particular variations; for instance, Penalosa (1995) summarizes the traits of Chicano English, and Wolfram (1995) the traits of Puerto Rican English. For Asian-influenced dialects, Cheng (1987, 1995) discuss- es Chinese English; Takada and Hanahan (1995) discuss Japanese English; and Hoi and Bich (1995) Viemamese English. At the same time, however, instructors should remember that common features of communication cross over dialectal boundaries, and that within particular dialects students can present diverse inter- actional patterns. The point is that instructors should interpret all overviews of dialectal traits as general but not as stereotypical descriptions. COMMUNICATION DISORDERS To this point, I have addressed variations on normal communication (conmeunica- tion differences). In contrast, the skills of students with communication disorders do not fall within the parameters of normal communication. That is, the variations in such students’ communication cannot be accounted for by the presence of a par- ticular dialect. In general, students with communication disorders share one or more of the following traits: (1) communication that results from or leads to phys- ical harm to the speech production mechanism, (2) communication that distorts the intention or information to be shared, (3) communication that is so distinctive that it draws undue attention or reaction to the student, (4) communication that diminishes the self-concept or creates an inappropriate emotional state in the stu- dent (Van Riper and Emerick 1990). Communication disorders can be mild (ie. trained clinicians would notice them, but no one else) to severe (ie., anyone would notice and react to them). Research on the incidence of communication disorders in the United States has centered on children and older adults (see, eg., Fein 1983; Gillespie and Cooper 1973; Leske 1981). But one overview has looked at the incidence of com- munication disorders in first-year university students. In it, Coulton (1986) reviewed speech screenings of more than 30,000 such students from 1971 to 1983, and estimated that 1.4 percent of them had disorders in speech sounds (various errors in the production or combination of speech sounds), 0.7 percent had voice disorders (problems related to vocal characteristics sich as loudness, pitch level, or quality), and 0.3 percent of them had a disorder in fluency (abnormal speech rates or stutter or clutter behaviors that diminished the speech rhythm). He did not assess the presence of disorders of language; however, other research has estiinat- ed that 6.2 percent of pre-university adolescent students have language disorders arGuater 37 (Marge 1972). From these estimates, instructors can expect some 9 percent of uni- versity students to present with a communication disorder of unknown cause (idiopathic), who due to the nature of their disorder might or might not receive accommodation from campus disability services offices. (Additional students could present with communication disorders that have co-occurred with a disability such as deafness or blindness, and so are classified in their records as “disabled” and do receive services.) Because this essay focuses on the dialects of students of color and whether those dialects are within the parameters of normal communication, I won't discuss the broader picture of communication disorders here. However, instructors of the Basic Communication course would do well to become familiar with which traits should prompt clinical evaluation of a potential communication disorder —such as a stutter, non-normal voice production, or various other disorders that are inde- pendent of dialect. Ac the same time that instructors focus on what és a communication disor- der, they should also be focusing on what is not a disorder. A position paper from the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association summarizes the status of dialects No dialectal variety of English or any other language is a disorder or patho- logical form of speech or language. Each social dialect is adequate as a functional and efficient variety of English. Each serves a communication function as well as a social solidarity function. It maintains the communica- tion network and the social construct of the community of speakers who use it, (1983: 23-24) ASSESSING COMMUNICATION STATUS An instructor can ascertain the communication status of his or her students in col- laboration with professionals from the discipline of Communication Disorders. In some cases, Communication Studies even shares an academic department with Communication Disorders. Even when they don't, campuses with a concern for student success will provide a home for the clinical services central to the Com- munication Disorders discipline, often in schools of Health, Communication, or Education. Clinicians from Communication Disorders would welcome such col- laborative endeavors to stimulate discussion of communication issues, advance information on communication norms, and provide clinical services. ‘One model for the provision of clinical services is the assessment of the communication status of all students in the Basic Communication course prior to or at the start of the course as an inherent element of it. In such an assessment model, Communication Disorders professionals, in consultation with Communi- cation Studies instructors, would determine which students (1) clearly did have skills within the scope of normal communication, (2) clearly did not have skills within the scope of normal communication, and (3) needed further evaluation, 4?38. Pedagogical Issues This model allows the instructor to recommend appropriate accommodation, remediation, or both, based on each student’ particular communication needs. To schedule assessment prior to enrollment offers distinct advantages. Sta dents are familiar with the concept of placement assessments from other academ- icareas, such as music or mathematics, so participation in a communication assess- ‘ment would not be alien to them. Should the assessment reveal the presence of a communication difference the instructor would be aware in advance of the need to «stablish evaluation criteria that accept variations of communication within estab- lished parameters of excellence; should the assessment reveal a disorder, the instructor would anticipate not only appropriate accommodations but also reme- diation activities, and could work with the student to seek clinical services. ‘A drawback to the approach is the resources it requires. Communication Disorders professionals conduct screenings of oral communication skills in their clinical practice, and some Communication Studies instructors include screening as a part of their initial overviews of the skill levels of students in their classes. The screening process involves the broad determination of whether a student appears to clearly present normal or non-normal communication skills or is in need of additional in-depth evaluation to determine the presence of a disorder. Even if a screening focused on speech-production skills and did not include the broader area of language skills, each interaction would take five to 15 minutes. And, since one aim of the assessment would be to identify both differences and disorders, pro- fessionals from the disciplines of both Communication Studies and Commur tion Disorders would need to participate collaboratively. If conditions precluded assessing students’ communication status before enrollment, the instructor could conduct the assessment early in the semester, perhaps as one of a series of required class exercises. But the advance approach is still preferable, especially should a dis- order be discovered that requires remediation. Also, sometimes the revelation of a communication disorder after the course has begun can negatively affect the stu- dent’ attitude toward participation in course activities. Then, too, the pressures of time constraints in such a schedule can increase the chances for misinterpretations of assessment results. For these reasons, some instructors prefer an alternate model of reactive, rather than proactive, service provision — that of assessment only when the instructor becomes concerned about the communication status of specific stu- dents. While this as-needed model reduces the drain on resources and allows more personalized attention during assessment to individual students, the poten- tial benefits of having their communication status assessed is lost for the rest of the students in the basic course. ica- ISSUES TO ADDRESS Whether all students have their communication status assessed, or only those who : ugGunter 39 present with particular cause for concern, the intention remains the same: for the instructor to determine whether a student possesses standard, nonstandard, or dis- ordered communication skills. That determination necessitates the addressing of five issues: 1. Is the student's pattern of communication consistent with a partic- ular dialect? In an assessment, evaluators would collect information about the student’ pattems of communication, then compare these with the patterns of standard and nonstandard dialects. Should a student’ linguistic, paralinguistic, and nonlinguistic aspects of communication be consistent with the rules of a par- ticular nonstandard dialect, then the student’ skills would be described as diffor- ent, However, if these aspects are inconsistent with any rules — that is, not even ne intact rule-based communication system has developed — then the student’ sills would be described as disordered and in need of intervention, (The aim of that intervention would be for the student to become capable of consistently compre- hending and producing at least one dialect, whether standard or nonstandard.) Even if a student appeared to possess a dialect, the evaluators would proceed with additional queries to determine whether the student used that dialect for the most productive interactions. 2. Does the student's pattern of communication interfere with infor- mation or intention? Next, evaluators would assess whether particular aspects of the students communication — even if consistent with the rules of a dialect interfered with how well an audience could understand the student: For instance, might an audience unfamiliar with the dialect’ rules for speech sound production find ie difficult to understand the student’ articulation of some words? Or might an audience unfamiliar with the dialect’ particular idiomatic phrases find ie diffi- cult to understand the implication of those phrases? Evaluators also would assess whether particular aspects of the student's communication interfered with how well an audience could understand the student’ intention. For instance, might an audience unfamiliar with the dialect’ rules for sentence construction find i¢ diffi- cult to interpret the intention of a statement? Or might an audience unfamiliar with the facial expressions common in the student culture misinterpret the con- nection of the expressions to the oral information? While evaluators would be hesitant to label these differences as disorders, the instructor could at least alert such a student to the potential of particular behaviors to interfere with communi- cation, so that the student could account for these differences in his or her analy- sis of the audience for a speech. 3. Does the pattern of communication call undue attention to the stu- dent? Evaluators would assess whether particular aspects of the student's commu- nication — even when consistent with the rules of a dialect — called undue atten- tion to the student. Some amount of attention from other students s to be expect- ed, as with distinctive personal traits; evaluators, however focus on the narure of that attention, Ts the attention positive and indicative of curiosity toward the stu- 4940 Pedagogical Issues dent and his or her distinctive cultural experience? ‘Then the instructor can use that curiosity as the basis for course interactions that celebrate diversity among the class, Is the attention less than positive? Then the instructor must ascertain the locus of responsibility for that reaction and, as before, address the discrepancies with appropriate pedagogy. 4. Does the pattern of communication evoke unpleasant or unpro- ductive reactions in the student? Evaluators would assess the students own reactions to possessing a communication difference. Sometimes common com- munication apprehension can account for a student's unpleasant or unproductive reactions, in which case the instructor has available the usual assortment of mod- els of intervention for apprehension. If, however, the communication difference is in fact the basis, then the instructor and student would need to explore the stu- dent's eventual communication aims, and decide which educational means would best allow the student to achieve those aims, as well as explore values associated with the communication experience. 5. Does the pattem of communication restrict the student's opportu- nities? Evaluators would honestly appraise whether the student's communication differences have restricted his or her curricular or extracurricular opportunities or both. Here, evaluators and the student must divorce themselves from the idealis- tic (all opportunities are open to all qualified students”) to confront the realistic. When restrictions are evident, the instructor is presented with an opportunity to commend to the student the merits of bi- or multdialectalion (command of two or more dialects); meaning, students expand their communication effectiveness by being capable of choosing among communication patterns to best address the needs of the particular social contexts Once students with communication differences or disorders are identi- fied, the time comes for the instructor to assess the appropriateness of particular elements of her or his Basic Communication course for those students with differences 2. How Might a Communication Difference Affect the Student’s Performance? A communication difference can impact a student’s performance of the activities that instructors of the Basic Communication course use to teach the skills needed to research, outline, write, deliver, and criticize various genres of public presenta- tions. So, instructors should review their particular criteria for successful comple- tion of those activities, and reflect on how the performance of a student with a communication difference might contrast with the performance of students who present with standard English dialects. 50Gunter 41 Which performance elements need review? The “Speech Performance Evaluation Form” (lowa State University, 1995) used in the Basic Communica- tion course at one Midwestern academic institution is representative of the crite- ria with which student performance is measured; and an overview of that evalua tion tool reveals the elements instructors there consider central to the completion of various tasks, In the overview below, following each area on the list are exam- ples of the potential effects of communication differences to which an instructor should be sensitive: Area 1: TOPIC Potential effects of communication differences include: (a) selection of topic, {b) selection of focus within topic, (c) selection of perspective for topic, (d) selection of pertinent information related to topic, (e) determination of appro- priateness of topics for particular audiences, and ( determination of appro- priateness of topics for occasions ‘Area 2: THESIS. Potential effects of communication differences include: (a) placement of the thesis within the structure, (6) expression of the thesis, and () selection of a thesis or purpose within the experience or the interest of the audience. ‘Area 3: DOCUMENTATION Potential effects of communication differences include: (a) balance of sup- portive material, (b) sources of supportive material, (c) determination of authoritative nature of sources, (d) use of unfamiliar material, (e) use of mate- rial best interpreted in a particular cultural context, and (f) relation of material 10 particular purposes within a presentation. ‘Area 4: STRUCTURE Potential effects of communication differences include: (a) choice of narrative structure imposed onto speech, (b) choice of temporal, topical, or combined format, and (c) structure of information within sections of presentation. ‘Area 5: CONTENT Potential effects of communication differences include: (a) choice of words, (0) use of unfamiliar phrases, (c) use of idiomatic phrases, (d) use of humor, sarcasm, and other abstract constructions interpreted in a noniiteral manner, (©) use of cultural references, and (f) match of language to the status, seri- ‘ousness, and intent of the occasion at hand, ‘Area 6: SPEECH Potential effects of communication differences include: (a) articulation of par- ticular speech sounds, (b) pronunciation of particular words, (c) construction of sentence structure, and (d) construction of narrative structure, Area 7: PARALINGUISTIC BEHAVIORS Potential effects of communication differences include: (a) rate of presenta- Si42 Pedagogical Issues tion, (o) variation in intonation pattern, (c) loudness of presentation, and (¢) match of intonation pattern to sentence structure and intention of information. Area 8: NONLINGUISTIC BEHAVIORS Potential effects of communication differences include: (a) overall position ‘and movement, (b) facial expression, (c) hand movement, (d) eye contact with audience, (e) distance from audience, and (f) coordination of visual aids. This overview has pointed out how communication differences can affect particular dimensions of public performances. But instructors need not limit eri- tique of their instructional practices to the criteria they impose upon student speeches. Similarly, instructors should review their eriteria for student success across other activities in the Basic Communication course, to increase their aware- ness of dialect-sensitive areas of student performance evaluation. 3. Which Model of Evaluation of Student Performance Is Now in Place in the Course? When students with communication differences (and even communication dis- orders) enroll in the Basic Communication course, instructors are faced with resolving two instructional aims sometimes at cross-purposes: how to maintain standards of excellence for student performance, while at the same time allowing variations within their definition of whae constitutes excellence. On some cam- puses, instructors of the Basic Communication course agree to adopt an evalua- tion protocol that is applied consistently across multiple sections of the course. In such a protocol, some philosophical components of evaluation have been translat- ed into practical application, with clear, consistent assumptions about excellence in place. Elsewhere, however, instructors are given the discretion to create their own individual approaches to evaluation. Instructors would be well-advised to honestly appraise their evaluation practices to determine which models of evalua- tion are implemented across their courses, then whether those models constitute best practices for students presenting with communication differences. Instructors should evaluate their standards of comparison. For instance, some instructors use an “ideal” standard, which incorporates their assumptions about what constitutes excellence in communication, then compare the perform- ance of individual students against that ideal. The “idea!” standard might reflect protocols that have been published, communication patterns that win speech competitions, or even the instructor's personal experiences with those who have demonstrated exceptional skills. Whatever its basis, the standard of comparison would be an absolute one, applied across all students across all instructional contexts Other instructors use context-specific standards. Rather than compare per- formance against an absolute ideal, for instance, they compare students against the 52Gunter 43 ideal of that student’ particular communication pattern, in effect asking: “What would constitute excellence (effectiveness) for a student who presents with this communication pattern, and to what extent has the student demonstrated that ideal?” In other words, a student with a dialect would be assessed in comparison with the linguistic, paralinguistic, and nonlinguistic rules of that particular dialect, Peterson and Marquardt (1994: 14) assert that “unless we understand the structure and the function of the language we are listening to, we cannot judge the efficiency of the speaker's use of it.” Instructors who compare students in context are attempting to assess effectiveness within dialect parameters. Some instructors extend this context-specific approach to assess how effec tively the student would be communicating both in the dialect’ native context (that is, in a familiar context with persons who share that dialect) and also in its nonnative context (that is, in an unfamiliar context with persons who do not share the dialect). Here the question is, “How well has the student adapted to the ele- ‘ments of the communicative environment?” This way, the focus of evaluation cen- ters not on the presence of particular dialectal traits, per se, but rather on the stu- dent's adaptation of communication for various purposes. “These are but a sample of the diverse approaches to evaluation of student performance that instructors might apply in the Basic Communication course, ‘The important point is that instructors must become aware of their expectations for their students. Once their standards of comparison are apparent, instructors can then discern the rationale for the standards. If the rationale is consistent with the aims of the Basic Communication course, then the particular standards may be allowed to remain. If they are inconsistent, they must be changed. Regardless, instructors must address key issues such as these: ® Under which instructional conditions would the presence of a commu- nication difference, by definition, impact the evaluation of a student? @ Under which instructional conditions would a student with and a student without a communication difference be evaluated inconsistently? In the end, as instructors become more aware of what models of evaluation they are implementing in their courses, they can adapt those models to incorporate concerns for clear and appropriate criteria for excellence, as well as consistent standards of evaluation to the extent possible. Conclusion ‘This essay has overviewed a three-part process that could contribute to the cre- ation of an environment that would increase opportunities for success of students of color in the Basic Communication course. That is, (1) Communication Studies instructors, in collaboration with Communication Disorders professionals as needed, ascertain the communication status of their students, to inform the for- 5244 Pedagogical Isvues mulation of appropriate expectations for student performance. (2) Alerted to the presence of students with communication differences (and disorders), instructors then assess the course’ instructional components, looking particularly at those tasks most likely to be influenced by communication differences, in order to delin cate which aspects of student performance would or would not be cause for seri- ‘ous concern. (3) Finally, instructors evaluate the models of evaluation they apply in the course to discern whether these models reflect the philosophical and prac- tical considerations most essential to the instructor and most effective in evaluat- ing students. When instractors find inconsistent or inappropriate philosophies or practices, they reconstruct their models to reflect best practices in evaluation. By participating in this three-part process, an instructor’ awareness of and answers to issues that surround communication differences will be enhanced, as will be the experiences of ai! students in the Basic Communication course. References American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (1983). “Position Paper on Social Dialects.” ASHA 25(9): 23-24. Cheng, L-L. (1987). Asesment and Remediation of Asian Language Populations, Rockville, ‘MD: Aspen. —— . (November 1995). “Chinese-Influenced English.” Paper presented to the Annual Convention, American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Orlando, Florida, Coulton, G.R. (1986). “Speech Disorders Among College Freshmen: A 13-Year Survey.” Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders 511): 3-7. Edwards, J. (1991). Language and Disadvantage: Studies in. Disorders of Communication 2nd ed. London: Whurr. Fein, DJ. (1983). “The Prevalence of Speech and Language Impairinents.” ASHA 25(2): 37. Gillespie, SK., and E.B. Cooper. (1973). “Prevalence of Speech Problems in Junior and Senior High Schools.” Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 16: 739-743, Hegde, MN. (1991). Introduction to Conmmunicative Disorders. Austin, TX: Pro-Fd Hoi, DJ., and NNN. Bich. (November 1995). “Vietnamese-Influenced English.” Paper presented to the Annual Convention, American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Orlando, Florida Hulit, L., and M, Howard. (1997). Born to Talk: An Introduction to Speech and Language Development. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Kayser, H. (1995). Bilingual Speech-Language Pathology. San Diego, CA: Singular, Leske, M.C. (1981). “Prevalence Estimaces of Communicative Disorders in the U'S, Speech Disorders).” ASHA 2303): 217-225. ‘Marge, M. (1972). “The Prevention of Communication Disorders.” ASHA 15: 29-34. 54Gunter 45 ‘MeLaughlin, 8. (1998). Fstroducton to Language Development. San Diego, CA: Singular. Owens, R. (1992). Language Development. New York: Merrill- Macmillan. Penaiosa, F. (November 1995) “Chicano English.” Paper presented to the Annual ‘Convention, American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Orlando, Florida. Peterson, H., and T: Marquardt. (1994). Appraisal and Diagnosis of Speech and Language Disorders, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. ‘Takada, N., and E. Hanahan. (November 1995). ‘Japanese-Influenced English.” Paper presented to the Annual Convention, American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Orlando, Florida Taylor, O., ed. (1986). Nature of Communication Divorders in Culturally and Linguistzally Diver Populations. San Diego, CA: College-Hill. USS. Bureau of the Census. (1990), 1990 Census. heep//blue.census.gov. Van Riper, C., and L. Emerick. (1990), Speech Carrectim. 8th ed. Englewood Cliffs, Nj Prentice-Hall. ‘Warren-Leubecker, A.,andJ.N. Bohannon IIL (1985). “Language in Society: Variation and Adaptation.” In The Development of Language, 3rd ed., edited by J.B. Gleason. Columbus, OH: Merrill. Wolfram, W. (November 1995). “Puerto Rican English.” Paper presented to the Annual Convention, American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Orlando, Florida. 55Contextualizing the Success of African-American Students in. Predominantly White Communication Departments Dorthy L.. Pennington have taught Intercultural Communication and Cultural Studies with a domes- tic (United States) focus — ie,, interracial communication — at a predomi- nantly white university for more than 20 years. My teaching and research have centered around communication and cultural issues between blacks and whites, so Tam more intimately familiar with the literature in that area than any other, not, to minimize the importance of broadening the focus to include communication and cultural issues between or among the other groups that now make up multi- cultural America. I focus here on contextualizing the communication and cultur- al issues between blacks and whites as those issues manifest themselves in univer- sity or college classrooms. I argue that facilitating the success of African Ameri- cans in Communication classrooms begins in a much larger context: that of the campus and community environment and the cultural and social activities that occur therei In this essay, T begin with descriptions of four events that reflect a natural and spontaneous emergence of cultural expression and values by African-Ameri- can students on my campus, and I then use theory to make sense of my observa- tions and their implications for classrooms in Communication and Cultural Stud- ies. Finally, T show how these events provide the larger context into which my class, Intercultural Communication: The African American, falls and operates, sharing what T hope have been successful activities and class procedures within that context. My observations are not necessarily related to one another, but there isan intertextualicy among them that increases the likelihood that principally sim- ilar ones can be occurring on my campus or elsewhere. ‘These observations, [ hope, have heuristic value that extends beyond my essay. After each, I was feft with question or questions, which are subsequently stated. After the four observa- tions, I present two separate statements, written to me recently by students, one black and the other white, explaining why they were absent from the same class, I pose questions after these statements, as well. 56 46Pennington 47 OBSERVATION 1 Ata recent social dinner meeting between African-American faculty and Affican- American students, self-introductions were made. The majority of the students, many of whom were campus leaders, introduced themselves as having a strong identification with a black Greek organization. In the order of their verbal dis- course, almost without exception, the name of the sorority or fraternity to which they belonged was stated following their name, as something of a high-priority identity marker. Students would say, for example, “Hi, my name is Jane Doe, and Tama member of Zeta Phi Beta Sorority,” or “Hello, I am John Doe, and I belong to Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity.” This order of information manifested itself throughout the introductions, with other information about the students, such as their major or other campus affiliations, being presented lower in the order. Question: Why was there such a strong identification of these African- American students with Greek organizations as a part of their identity? OBSERVATION 2 ‘One of my students shared a videotape of a meeting led by African-American stu- dents held one evening to discuss issues of identity and identification among African-American students on campus, including perceptions of some of the prob- lematized issues for the students. During the meeting, the students expressed dif- ferent viewpoints on the need for, or likelihood of, African-American students on campus being able to derive a common identity, given the diverse socioeconomic backgrounds from which black students come; issues of intraracial and interracial rejection on campus; and relationships between black males and black females on campus. The public speaking of the students at this meeting flowed freely and undeterred, and each student who wanted to speak was given a chance to voice his or her opinion. The meeting was attended by students only. Questions: Why did the students feel the need to arrange a meeting on this topic? Given the substantive and provocative nature of this discussion, why didn’t the students ask a faculty or staff member to make a presentation or to facilitate the meeting? OBSERVATION 3 The black student gospel choir gave a concert in a campus auditorium, which also featured other gospel singing groups from this region. At this occasion, the stu- dent choir would be recording live its first commercial CD. In the public announcement about the event that appeared in the local newspaper, the only ref- erence made to a starting time was that the doors would open at 5:30 pm. The elaborate printed program issued to attendees at the door also did not lista start- ing time for the performance, which actually began arpund 6:45 pm. The printed 5?48 Pedagogical Issues program indicated the nature of the event as a full-fledged worship service titled “Crazy Praise,” which included scripture reading, prayer, and an open invitation to Christian Discipleship to anyone who wished to come forward during the serv- ice. The printed program also revealed pertinent information on the nature and purpose of the black student gospel choir: As printed in the program, they are: about glorifying God through music. We predominantly spend tine ‘singing and studying His word while developing a supportive Christian fami- ly. Singing for God means we are messengers for His word. Every time that we sing His word, we pray that someone will cry out “What must I do to be saved?” The choir] is a very uplifting and spiritually motivating organization. We refer to [the choir] as one big family in Christ. To most of us, {the choir] is our home away from home. Members wait eagerly for choir rehearsal to give them that extra spiritual uplift they need to make it through the week. [THE CHOIR] IS MORE THAN JUST SINGING — it is Bible study, worship, and Christian tellowship. “The choir was directed by a fellow student; and the musicians, who play improvisationally, were also students, ‘The entire evening, including the musi sung by the choir, was affective, filed with pathos, spontaneous, expressive, inter- active (engaging the audience), dynamic, rhythmic, and movement-oriented, with the choir and the student director moving about freely. The style and mannerisms of the director included not only body movements but also platform mobility (even while directing the choir) and verbal solicitation for audience involvement during the pauses between songs. The implication was that the audience members were not to simply listen to the music’ message, but they were expected to inter nalize and act upon it. The ministers who offered the scripture and the prayer also encouraged audience participation, On this occasion, they showed that a stage performance event was merged with the personal when they extended an open invitation for anyone who wanted to give their life to God to come forward dur- ing the service. This event, in essence, represented the integration of forms, where a concert and recording session were blended with a worship service; the per formance was merged with the personal; and the message given in music was not just informational, but it was expected to have life-application, as well. Questions: What is significant about the choir serving as a “home away from home” for its members? What is significant about the cultural style of the concerv/worship service, and about the blending of forms — ie, a concert, recording session, and a worship service all in one — and being held on the cam- pus ofa state university? OBSERVATION 4 In my Intercultural Communication class, students had been randomly assigned to simall groups, each given the task of producing a skit to be presented in class RQPennington 49 illustrating a significant current or historical issue or problem in interracial com- munication. With there being a small number of African Americans in the class (nine out of 52), students were permitted to produce costumes that helped them to portray a member of a different race if they felt that to be necessary to enhance their presentation. (In years past, costuming had not been a provocative issue, because the classroom environment, which I often refer to as a laboratory, had been trusting enough for there to be interracial role playing. The prior establish ment of a psychologically safe environment is important.) Some of the African- American students in the class took offense at a white student’s portrayal of an African American in a skit, and they verbally expressed their anger in class, In addi- tion to the issue that the skit was portraying (incompatible schema surrounding the flying of the Confederate flag), the perception of the costumes as offensive had to be resolved right away. Question: In providing a classroom and campus environment that is safe for all students, especially those in underrepresented groups, what are the limits of classroom interracial interaction, even if it occurs in a laboratory-type learning environment? Is there a place for humor or satire? ‘TWO EXPOSITIONS ‘The first, explaining his absence from dlass, written by a white male student: Dr Pennington, | wanted to let you know the reasons for my absences of the past 3 classes. . Last Tuesday, October 17, | spent in St. Louis with other Green Party sup- porters. We all took a bus and participated in the 017 protests at Washing- ton University. We got to see Ralph Nader speak twice, participated in 2 marches each having over 1,200 citizens, and protested the exclusion of Ralph Nader from the debates, Our protest included mockery (making big Puppets of the presidential candidates), autonomous action (chants of “This is what democracy looks like!”), playground name calling (“Whose streets? Our streets!"), speeches, and downright civil disobedience. It was an amazing experience and | felt that my voice was being able to be expressed properly. ‘As for last Thursday and Tuesday, | was in New York for the College Music Journal Festival. This included 1,000 bands and independent films and pan- ls. This is why I ove being a dj here. | saw some amazing music, including underground soul singer Sharon Jones (of which she danced with me and | got some of her lyric sheets) and polit- coal heroes Antibalas Afrobeat Orchestra which mixed African polyrhythms with direct political action lyrics. | had the opportunity to see some music panel discussions on the future of hiphop and the future of internet music. | also got to see Elis Island, walk across the Brooklyn Bridge (a dream of mine) and hear street musicians throughout the subway.50 Pedagogical Issues | had wonderful experiences but missed a lot of school in the process. Whatever | need to do to catch up, | will. | am almost finished with the Acculturation book and | can take the test tomorrow if you would like me to, hope you understand how these events have helped enrich my ife experi- ‘ence. The last 9 days have been hectic but enlightening. The second, explaining his absence from class, was written by a black male student: Dr. Pennington, | have been going through some personal changes with my financial situation these past couple of weeks which played a major role in my attendance in class. { have not received my financial aid this semester because of verification. My people are not wealthy and | use my Pell grant to pay for my expenses. Recently my phone, gas, and water have been turned off. I've really been struggling and its been a cistraction to my studies. | hope that you can understand and if we could work something out, I'd like to thank you. Questions: What is the difference between the college experiences of these two students? As the white student felt that his voice was “being able to be expressed properly,” how can the voice of the black student be expressed properly? Discussion ‘The task of making sense of these four seemingly unrelated observations and two written statements is facilitated by noting several transcendent propositions about African-American students on my campus: They seek clearly reliable means of identification and support, and want to ensure and negotiate for themselves an academic community and classroom environment that are psychologically and culturally safe; the role of providing the support needed is played by peers and by a rather unique role of religion and spirituality. 1 They are attracted to academic fora that focus on diversity and other issues in which they are interested and can feel involved, and where they feel that their voices tan be heard; the fora often have life-application meaning for them. African-American students on predominantly white campuses are faced with identity issues that situate them along a range of experiences, from being assimilated to being marginal, and they practice different pattems of cultural adaptation, For many of them, life on a predominantly white campus is analogous to the transcultural adaptation experiences that any of us encounters when we engage in international adaptation. A profile of transcultural adaptations given by ‘Mansell (1981) bese describes what I observe about African-American students on 60Pennington $1 my campus, especially a it pertains to expressive responses to an environment that, is different from their home environments, Mansell shows how shifting emotion- al and affective states lead to varying degrees of alienation, marginality, acltura- tion, or duality. As far as cultural identity in a new environment is concerned, in alienation, there is a sense of loss or separation, where one remains monocultural; in marginality there isa sense of division or split loyalties to a double binds in aceul- uration, there is a sense of belonging and identification with the new culture to such an extent as to be monocultural with that group; and in duality, there is a sense of autonomy, biculturalism, and independence. While my conversations with African-American students in Communica tion reveal that their backgrounds, exposure to, and assimilation in European- American culture vary from one extreme to the other (a diversity among black stu- dents, which was problematized in my Observation 2), for the most part a sizeable number of them exhibit behaviors that would indicate both marginality and dual- ity of their identity on my campus. Perhaps their strong identification with Greek organizations indicates their attempts to find a sense of belongingness, and yet, a belongingness that represents biculturalism, since most African-American Greeks belong to black Greek organizations rather than to white ones, even on a pre- dominantly white campus. Thus, differences are expressed in the two sets of cam- pus Greek organizations. Black Greeks’ sense of biculturalism and independence is demonstrated through unique performance rituals associated with black Greek activities, such as step shows, which take place on our campus several times dur- ing the academic year. Believing step shows to be unique to black Greeks, I asked members of my class, which contained black and white Greeks, if anyone knew of white Greck organizations that performed step shows, and no one did. In addition to lending credence to biculturalism, or duality of African- American identity on a predominandly white college campus, performance events also call attention to the nature of support that is important to, and negotiated by, African-American students, In a study of high-risk high school students, which included many African Americans, based on income and family background, Rosenfeld and Richman (1999) made a link between social support mechanisms and school outcomes. In identifying various types of social support (including lis- tening support, emotional support, emotional challenge support, reality confirmation sup- port, technical appreciation support, technical challenge support, tangible assistance support, and personal assistance support (295), they found what I think are two intriguing, and yet explanatory, results for my observations. On the question of who provided spe- cific types of support, these researchers found that for at-risk students, teachers were not listed as being either primary or secondary providers of the eight types of support listed. Instead, behaviors seen by teachers as supportive (those behav- iors concemed with students’ well-being) were, perhaps, seen by students as being a part of the class routine, or even suspect, according to Rosenfeld and Richman. ‘The students in che study, on the other hand, reporeedpogeiving techni appre @\ 452_ Pedagogical Issues ation support, technical challenge support, and reality confirmation support from their friends (1999: 303). While these were high school students, this study has rele~ vancy here. For the students in my Observation 2, I now better understand why they did not ask for faculty or staff members to lead their discussion of identity issues: because the forum was structured to elicit support for their position, their friends and peers, rather than teachers, were seen as providing the support that they felt they needed. And, likewise, the students in the gospel choir explicitly indicated that the choir was their “supportive Christian family,” their “home away from home,” and that they eagerly awaited their regular rehearsals to give them “that extra spiritual uplift they need to make it through the week.” This indicates that the student gospel choir on my campus provides for its members emotional sup- port (comfort and caring); reality confirmation support (sharing and viewing the world in the same way); and personal assistance support (providing service or help, such as a ride to rehearsals for those who needed it). The metaphor of the choir as being a “Christian family,” expressed within the context of a large state univer- sity, is significant in upholding the view that African-American culture emphasizes having a holistic connection among religion, spirituality, and secular life, as explained by Daniel and Smitherman (1976). ‘The value placed on spirituality expressed by the African-American students in the choir resonated with the stated focus of the 1999 National Black Student Leadership Conference, attended by some 900 college students, on “ethical responsibility, spiritual growth, and preparing to lead in a global economy” (Fields 1999: 14). The choir clearly practiced duality of their transcultural experience, in that their concert/recording-session/worship was attended primarily by blacks, a reversal of the usual campus racial ratio; this was an autonomous, independent event. Observations 2 and 3 clearly show a reliance on peer leadership among African-American students, in both the discussion leaders and the choir director. This is consistent with a successful diversity peer-education program started by students on my campus in 1995. Called the “Diversity Peer Education Team,” these peer student-educators, through activities and open discussion, explore issues pertaining to diversity and multiculturalism and serve as a vehicle to foster multicultural awareness and sensitivity in the university community (Best and Edwards 1998). The Diversity Peer Education Team is not limited to African- American students; but their central involvement in it, along with the student-led discussion of identity and diversity issues cited in my Observation 2, points to the saliency of diversity issues among African-American students. In addition to infor- mal fora of the type cited, the need is evident for more formal and structured envi- ronments for exposure to diversity, such as classrooms. Communication class- rooms and curricula are especially suited for this, for several reasons. Carrell (1997) found that diversity in che Communication curriculum has a positive ROPennington 53 impact on student empathy, which is a central component in communication competence. Empathy was more greatly achieved by students who completed a full course in Intercultural Communication, as compared with students who had diversity infused in an Interpersonal course, or compared with students who were required to give only one speech on diversity issues in the Public Speaking course. Intercultural communication competence is a desirable goal. According to Carrell (1997), facilitating its central component, empathy, is important in Interculeural Communication classrooms and curricular offerings. Achieving empathy as a part of intercultural communication competence in the Intercultural classroom is a challenge, but instructional lessons can be learned by using my Observation 4 and the two student expositions. The event described in Observation 4, which occurred in my Intercultural/Interracial Communication class, required an immediate resolution. In addressing the issue right away, I prac- ticed teacher immediacy, which, according to Neuliep (1995), is something that African-American students expect, especially from African-American teachers. In processing the anger expressed by the African-American students, in ret- rospect I had assumed (based on past classes) that the level of interracial trust in my class that year was higher than ir actually was, and it was a learning experience for me to have clear barometers for measuring interracial trust and empathy in the future. Nevertheless, in preparing the class for the activity-oriented group skits, T had aimed to establish the proper context through the reading materials and small-group tasks covered earlier in the semester. In that Intercultural/Interracial Communication class, I combine a culture-general approach with a culture” specific approach. Students must read articles on culture in general, which contain a model on worldview and other cultural components including language, schemas, belief, attitudes and values, temporality, proxemics, religion, social net- works, and interpolation patterns. Students then write a nongraded paper that describes their own culture and how these various components operate. Next, they read articles that give general descriptions of various culture types, learning. the communication values and characteristics of each culture. For this, I prefer to use readings that identify two basic culture types as oral and literate and that show how the two types foster different values. For example, oral cultures value face-to- face communication, communalism, sharing, spontaneity, and a relaxed regard for time, while literate cultures foster technological communication, competition, individualism, sometimes-circumscribed interaction, and a stricter regard for time, My students are offered these as theoretical possibilities, not as absolutes, for understanding culture. I complement the readings with videotapes that extend the comparisons between cultures to those between Western and non-Western cul- tures. We then apply the cultural types to the students in the class, showing that African Americans historically have had oral culture values. With the culture-general background established, I then move the course to a culture-specific level, focusing on African-American culture and on interracial 6354 Pedagogical Issues communication in the United States. Topics covered include African-American identity, core culeural values and symbols, communication style, and cultural inter- pretation, For the Interracial Communication portion, I begin with a historical reconstructionist approach, requiring students to read a historical article that describes race relations in early America and how racism and racial hierarchies were formed, Students, especially European Americans, are amazed at the arbi- trariness with which race and physical distinctions became permanent markers and symbols affecting human relations and communication. While many histori- cal sources are available for this assignment, I prefer an account titled “The Break- ing of the Bond” by L. Bennett, Jr, in Confrontation Black and White Penguin, 1965). With this historical foundation laid, J then go full-fledged into Interracial Communication readings that cover issues of race, stereotypes, prejudice, lan- guage, power, beliefs, attitudes and values, perception, normalization, interracial communication competence, and prescriptions for improving interracial communication, To guide students through the readings, with an eye toward application, I use case studies, usually of current events taken from newspapers, and videotapes that show an unresolved interracial communication problem, I assign students to small groups to discuss the cases and to apply principles and terms from their read- ings to identify a problem, explain it, and suggest solutions. The small-group for- ‘at allows the voice of each student to be heard, as well as for intragroup close- ness, sharing, teamwork, and negotiating opinions. Moreover, these same small groups produce the skits presented toward the end of the term, so group mem~ bers have an established relationship with one another. Each group reports the summary ofits case analysis to the class, contributing to a general discussion. I find that the general discussion is a time of openness and information sharing that places the cases within a larger social context. Often students will relate a similar experience that happened to them, especially Aftican-American students. This type of discussion of the readings gives each student a voice, and it gives my class a sense of currency, something that seems to appeal to them. One of my Aftican- American senior Communication majors indicated that my class had more ‘African-American students than he had seen in any one class during his four years at the university (the number is relatively small though, just nine out of 52). ‘The prescriptions for improving interracial communication include open- ness, trust, equality, assuming mutual responsibility for the communication our- come, and “relational empathy,” as discussed by Broome (1991), which includes provisionalism, negotiation, process, and building shared meaning. At the same time, however, I find that in order to make my class a productive one that enhances interracial communication, I must process and channel class discussions ina way that strikes a delicate balance between relational empathy among students and making room for the impact of historical facts and legacy. That is, I have learned that any relational empathy and problem solving that are attempted 64Pennington 55 between black and white students cannot presume an unledgered equality or absence of cultural memory on the part of black students. Rather, the historical sensitivity that exists on the part of many black students must be acknowledged as coming from a legacy that includes prejudice, discrimination, racism, stereotypes, underprivilege, powerlessness, and economic deprivation (of the sort mentioned by the black student who wrote the note to me explaining his absence from class). Tnow return to a resolution of the confrontation in my class described in my Observation 4. In my immediacy in addressing the matter, I asked for other reac- tions to the portrayal in the skit. More African-American students spoke out, that to them the portrayal was offensive because it was extreme, stereotypical, and did not represent the majority of African Americans. I then framed the discussion in such a way as to assure African-American students that they had a right to be heard and to share the reasons for their reactions, believing that the class would gen- uinely listen and learn, At the same time, however, I reminded them of their responsibility to help keep the lines of communication open and to mutually par- ticipate in problem solving, while allowing for their historical sensitivity to be made known. ‘The test of what was learned during that discussion came a few days lacer, during the next graded assignment, a printed case for a take-home analysis. The case copy had been given to students prior r@ the confrontation in class, but its contents were remarkably similar to the incident that caused the confrontation in class. In their written analyses, the European-American students showed that they had learned something of African Americans’ historical sensitivity, and they evedt accounted for it through historical reconstruction. African-American students showed that they wanted to express their feelings without closing the channels of interracial communication; they showed that they did not want to have domi- nance over the interaction, but merely a sense of fair play, I was pleased with this outcome ‘Writing this essay has allowed me, for the first time, to think specifically of meeting the needs of African-American students it Communication classes. I had always thought of meeting the needs of students in general, As it turns out, my class (and other classes, I am sure) has the potential for meeting some of the needs of African-American students that I identified earlier: for a safe academic envi- ronment where they can have a voice, where they can make decisions with their peers (as in the small-group case analyses and in the skits), where they can discuss diversity and other issues that are important to them, and where they can make life-applications of the lessons learned. I do know that many African-American students enroll in more than one class with me. The student evaluations of my course in Intercultural/Interracial Communication tend to be good. I believe that the success of African-American students in Communication classrooms depends on their academic ability, of course; but also on our meeting their cultural and social needs shown in larger contexts. 6556 Pedagogical Issues References Best, C., and V. Edwards. (December 1998). “Embracing Diversity: Diversity Peer Education ‘Téam Raises Awareness in Campus Community.” One Community 641): 1. Broome, BJ. (July 1991). “Building Shared Meaning: Implications of a Relational Approach to Empathy for ‘Teaching Intercultural Communication.” Communication Education 403): 235-249. Carrell, LJ. (October 1997). “Diversity in the Communication Curriculum: Impact on Student Empathy.” Conmnumication Education 46(4): 234-243, Daniel, J.L., and G. Smitherman. (February 1976). “How I Got Over: Communication Dynamics in the Black Community.” The Quarterly Journal of Speech 62(1): 26-39. Fields, C.D. (February 4, 1999), “Preparing Leaders for a New Century.” Black Iswes in Higher Education 1525): 14-15. ‘Mansell, M. (April 1981). “Transcultural Experiences and Expressive Response.” Communication Education 30(2): 91-108. Nealiep, J. July 1995). “A Comparison of Teacher Immediacy in African-American and Euro-American College Classrooms.” Camantmication Education 44(3): 267-277. Rosenfeld, L.B., and J.M. Richman. (October 1999). “Supportive Communication and School Outcomes, Part Il: Academically ‘At-Risk’ Low Income High School Stu- dents.” Communication Education 48(4): 294-306, 66Pedagogies of Empowerment A Framework for Promoting the Success of Students of Color Mary E. Triece, Patricia S. Hill, Kathleen D. Clark, Yang Lin, and Fulia A. Spiker ‘To commit ourselves to the work of transforming the academy so that i will be @ place where cultural diversity informs every aspect of our learning, we must embrace struggle and sacrifice. .. . Our solidarity must be affirmed by shared belie in a spirit of intellectual openness that celebrates diversity, welcomes dissent, and rejoices in collective dedication to truth. (hooks 1994: 33) lack feminist scholar bell hooks’ words provide a useful starting point for Jconcepnaiizing our roles as Communication scholars and teachers. How might we transform our classrooms so that cultural diversity informs our teaching and learning? What teaching philosophies and activities might enable us to engage our students in diversity and open discussion as we strive to create more socially just classrooms and communities? These questions are particularly impor- tant as we consider ways to ensure the success of students of color in our Com- munication classes. Scholars have examined the experiences of students of color on college campuses, revealing ways that historical inequalities and patterns of racial exclusion continue to marginalize this group (Allen, Bobo, and Freuranges 1984; Cross 1985; Feagin 1992; Fleming 1984; Gibbs 1973; June, Curry, and Gear 1990; Styles-Hughes 1987; Taylor 1986; Willie and McCord 1973; Zweigenhaft and Cody 1993), Further, recent research maintains that while students of color continue to make progress in higher education, they still lag significantiy behind European-American students in both the rate at which they enroll in college class es and their college completion rates (Chesler ard Malani 1993). What efforts might be employed to transform the inequalities that students of color continue to face on college campuses? This essay seeks to provide the underpinnings for a teaching process and leaning environment based on pedago- _gies of empowerment that challenge the stereotypes and structures that have for so long impeded the advancement of students of color, We primarily teach the general-education Speech course (also referred to throughout the essay as the “Introductory Speech” course)! at a metropolitan, open-enrollment state univer sity characterized by racial, ethnic, socioeconomic, and age diversity? Each of our respective areas of research informs our teaching approach and viewpoints on pedagogies of empowerment. Yer, all of our contributions hold in common an emphasis on the importance of the concrete material experiences’ that shape and inform students’ needs and perspectives and that provide a foundation for moti- 62 3758 Pedagogical Issues vating students to apply concepts beyond the classroom in struggles for race (as well as gender and class) equality. Critical pedagogical philosophies inform the first two sections of this essay, which provide a theoretical overview for the notion of pedagogies of empower- ment. We then explore classroom activities centering on self-reflection and cul- tural identity that further support pedagogies of empowerment. Finally, the essay concludes with a section on the roles that learning communities play in develop- ing pedagogies of empowerment, Taken together, our ideas offer a coherent but ‘multi-perspectival approach to the successful teaching of students of color. Materialist Critical Perspective as Empowerment Critical pedagogies have been developed and discussed by a number of scholars (ee Carlson and Apple 1998; Giroux and McLaren 1994; Giroux etal. 1995; Luke and Gore 1992; Ng, Staton, and Scane 1995; Popkewitz and Fendler 1999). ‘Though they might differ according to theoretical underpinnings or practical approach, critical pedagogies explore “the influences of educational knowledge that perpetuate or legitimate an unjust status quo” and are concerned with “social injustice and how to transform inequitable, undemocratic, or oppressive institutions and social relations” (Burbules and Berk 1999: 46-47). Critical peda- gogies have themselves been critically examined and challenged on a number of accounts. The concept of empowerment central to many critical pedagogical per- spectives has been criticized as misleading and paternalistic (see Ellsworth 1992; Gore 1992). Other scholars have pointed to the potential for critical pedagogies to become paralyzed by an overemphasis on language and affirmations of happy pluralisms at the expense of attention to struggle, conflict, and the existence of ‘material institutions and structures that require more than classroom tolerance to transform (McLaren 1994; McLaren and Gutierrez 1998; Mohanty 1994; Rezai- Rashti 1995). Similarly, multiculturalist discourses have been criticized for lack of attention to broad-based, entrenched material institutions that shape race, gender, and class relations and that have a stake in perpetuation of unequal relations. ‘This section discusses a pedagogy of empowerment underpinned by a mate- rialist critical perspective that frames empowerment in collective terms and directs attention toward material institutions and practices that play a fundamental role in unequal race, gender, and class relations. In sum, a materialist critical perspec- tive (1) challenges mainstream integration by emphasizing the importance of critique and the articulation of new ways to live and work; (2) advances the importance of rad ical transformation by encouraging application of communication concepts and skills in order to challenge dominant ideologies and institutions; (3) recgnizes inberent limitations of critical pedagogies and acknowledges the classroom as a realm limited in its capacity to elicit meaningful (read: material) social transfor- 68Triece, Hill, Clark, Lin, and Spiker 59 mation. As such, a materialist critical approach should be practiced in conjunction with other activites that directly engage economic production. CHALLENGING MAINSTREAM INTEGRATION ‘A materialist critical approach employs a language of critique and a language of possibility (see Giroux 1983) in order to challenge what is referred to as “main- stream integration” or teaching basic communication skills with the aim of equip- ping students to participate in, or adjust to, the status quo. Through critique, both students and teachers deconstruct and demystify the values, narratives, beliefs, and behaviors that perpetuate racial discrimination (in addition to other social injus- tices). The concept of critique discussed here can be compared with the critical- thinking and critical-listening skills that many Communication educators and textbooks teach. Critical chinking encourages students to “seek reasons and evi- dence” and instills in students the disposition to do so Burbules and Berk 1999: 48). In contrast, critique is contextualized and an overtly politica! analysis of a given message. It requires listeners to ask questions such as: Who benefits from this message? How? Whose interests are served by the values or beliefs espoused in a given message? What perspectives are ignored in this message? Why? Each of these questions encourages students to scrutinize and challenge the ways that racial discrimination is perpetuated through public discourses. In short, critique is critical thinking/listening with a counterhegemonic or oppositional bent. But more than that, critique as it is conceptualized here does noc stop at altering mind- sets; it seeks to “challeng{e] and transform the institutions, ideologies, and rela- tions that engender distorted, oppressed thinking in the first place” (Burbules and Berk 1999: 52). In addition to critique, a materialist critical pedagogy challenges main- stream integration through a language of possibility, the envisioning and articu- lating of new and more just ways of being, living, and working. Freire asserts that “To exist, humanly, is to name the world, to change it. Once named, the world in its turn reappears to the namers as a problem and requires of them a new naming” (1970: 76). As Communication scholars and teachers, we must begin the process of (re)naming based on the perspectives and experiences of people of color who have historically been left out of this process both in the classroom and in the broader community. Imagining anew, though, must be articulated in terms of a collective identity that recognizes differences — different voices, backgrounds, perspectives, needs — while not abandoning the imperative to speak collectively, as.a unified voice, and to recognize common needs and concerns. This notion of a collectivity contrasts with liberal humanist concepts of personal voice, dialogue, and plurality, which are grounded in an individualist ethic (see Luke 1992); are dis- connected from a history of conflict, struggle, and relations of inequality; and 6960 Pedagogical Issues “require discursive rather than material intecvention around issues of equality and reciprocity” (McLaren and Gutierrez, 1998; 318). As McLaren and Gutierrez, note: How we mark the boundaries of our ethnicities and racial identifications and representations does draw needed critical attention to the scribal power of dominant narratives and helps us both focus on and demobilize the neo- colonial system that energizes our collective values as a citizenry. Yet how wo identify ourselves collectively, across differences as a totality, is equally important. (1998: 329) Materialist critical pedagogy advances a language of possibility in terms of collec- tivity and locates concepts such as image and identity within a discussion of how broad-based material institutions benefit from and perpetuate discriminatory dis- courses in the first place. RADICAL TRANSFORMATION AND THE LIMITATIONS OF MATERIALIST CRITICAL PEDAGOGY Languages of critique and possibility offer many potentials for developing a ped agogical perspective. Yer, ideas must be enacted in the real world in order to make a real impact, As Communication teachers, we cannot (simply) teach our students how to organize, research, and deliver speeches, nor can we even stop at promot ing radical critique in the classroom. We must foster in our students the motiva~ tion and desire to apply what they have learned in the Communication classroom to the world outside. Once armed with the critical-thinking and -speaking tools addressed above, students must learn to recognize and seize opportunities in their homes, workplaces, and communities to alter dominant practices that continue to discriminate according to race, ethnicity, gender, and class. Put differently, as teachers, we must be careful not to conflate critique and praxis. The former pro- vides a basis for the latter. In the absence of application/action, critique — self- reflection, dialogue, whatever you want to call it — becomes mere intellectualism, and we fall into political paralysis. As Marx and Engels (1846) noted: “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it” (123). Furthermore, we must not remain blind to the limitations inherent in erans- formative attempts that come out of the college classroom. The radical potentials, of critical pedagogies are often limited by the educational institution itself and its rootedness in a broader socioeconomic system based on labor exploitation (see Gore 1998: 276, 277). Institutions of higher learning reinforce status quo relations in the classroom and through research imperatives. In the classroom, teachers face the undeniable fact that they have a degree of power over students — to give grades, establish criteria, set class requirements. Further, the teaching approaches that are most often rewarded (implicitly or explicitly) are those that promote pro- 70Triece, Hill, Clark, Lin, and Spiker 61 fessionalism and equip students with skills for getting by in the world, rather than transforming it. A materialist critical pedagogy recognizes the limitations inherent in transformation that stem from the educational sphere, yet it also recognizes that what we teach and how we teach in our Communication classes matter and can form an important basis for collective action beyond the academy. Standpoint Theory as Empowerment ‘Much like a materialist critical perspective, standpoint theory provides another philosophical underpinning for teachers striving to cultivate a classroom environ~ ment that promotes the success of students of color. Taken together, the two ped- agogical perspectives offer a framework for pedagogies of empowerment that emphasize the centrality of material conditions in shaping the experiences and perspectives of marginalized groups, such as students of color. Standpoint theory provides an interpretative framework for exploring the daily life experiences of persons situated in subordinate positions. It advocates using marginalized lives as a foundation for constructing knowledge about social relations of power Gee Collins 1986, 1990; Harding 1986, 1987, 1991; Hartsock 1983, 1997; Smith 1987; Wood 1992). Marginalized groups — e.g., women, peo- ple of color— hold a unique “outsider within” position in society; that is, they are both outside of (marginalized by) and inside of (participate within) dominant soci- ety (Collins 1986). As a result, according to standpoint theory, marginalized ‘groups are in a better position to produce knowledge and insights that are less dig- torted and less partial. Individuals in oppressed groups have less of a stake in the status quo and thus are more likely to offer provocative insights on social change that are often overlooked or censored. Standpoint theory is of particular value in teaching students of color because it broadens the classroom content and discussion in order to more adequately rep~ resent diverse experiences. Further, it allows students to recognize and validate their own personal experiences as individuals who have historically been margin- alized by dominant society. Applied to our Introductory Speech classes, standpoint theory encourages a reconceptualization of what constitutes knowledge and how itis conveyed in the classroom. Standpoint theory fosters a learning environment where students of color speak from their reality and thus reveal aspects of the social order that otherwise remain difficult to see (Collins 1986). Seudents are encouraged to work from their own experiences and to interrogate their experi- ences to explore how “what they know” reveals something about their social loca tion. Asking students to share what they know with one another can illuminate how privilege and power operate to those who are least able to view the world out- side dominant race, class, and gender ideologies. In order to encourage students to openly draw on their own experiences (and to be open to the experiences of others), a teaching approach informed by standpoint theory emphasizes experien- 7162_ Pedagogical Issues tial learning strategies, which link theory more meaningfully to direct experience and practice and empower students of color to think and speak critically. EXPERIENTIAL EXERCISES Students often question the relevance of enrolling in a Public Speaking course because they fail to see the connection between learning public speaking skills and applying these skills in real-life situations (Ford and Wolvin 1993; Mino 1988). “Teaching from the perspective of standpoint theory encourages teachers to apply communication concepts beyond the classroom in order to reach students’ per- sonal, academic, and professional lives. This is accomplished through classroom exercises that actively engage students with one another, with the teacher, and with the course material. Firsthand involvement in their own learning encourages students to reflect upon their own social experiences as students of color. To foster critical application of classroom concepts, teachers can employ the exercise “Each One Teach One.” The title takes its name from an old West African proverb that advocates the importance of community, and is in the spirit of collaborative leaning that is espoused in pedagogies of empowerment. Given that much scholarship on small groups validates the importance of groap dynam- ies to both social and work life (see Fisher 1980; Pavitt and Curtis 1994; ‘Tubbs 1988; Wall, Galanes, and Love 1987), “Each One Teach One” provides a valuable teaching tool for interrogating these dynamics and applying communication con- cepts to everyday life experiences. . In “Each One ‘Teach One,” students engage in a small-group learning exer- cise aimed at facilitating understanding of how public speaking concepts such as listening, language, and delivery can be applied to, and are inherent in, real-world communicative experiences. As a small group, students select a concept of public speaking and reflect on how that concept is used in their personal or professional lives. In round-robin fashion, students share cogent examples that describe for their classmates the utility or value of a variety of public speaking concepts in numerous personal and professional contexts. The cooperative aspect mirrors hooks’ (1994) assumptions that a goal of an engaged classroom is to open up a space for everyone and to create exercises that encourage students to apply theo- retical concepts to their own lives and their own standpoints as students of color. The quality of the Introductory Speech course continues to be of primary importance to the field of Communication in general as this is the course where most college students become familiar with our field. A growing diversity in our classrooms urges a reexamination of classroom practices that have historically benefited students from one segment of society. Standpoint and materialist criti- cal perspectives represent two pedagogies of empowerment that encourage teach- ing with a “vision of better life” (Girouxand McLaren 1989: xii) in which accept- ed canons of knowledge can be challenged, and attention can be given to creating TiTriece, Hill, Clan, Lin, and Spiker 63 classroom space that best fulfills the needs of all students, but especially those of students of color who have been historically marginalized. “Teaching practices informed by standpoint theory acknowledge and explore how different standpoints affect communicative practices. The next two sections describe specific classroom activities that explore the relationship between stand- point and communication. Self-Reflection as Empowerment As a pedagogical tool of empowerment that can be employed to help students of color succeed in the Introductory Communication course, self-reflection holds much in common with standpoint theory. Self-reflection empowers students of color by (1) making connections between their life context (standpoint) and the context of the university classroom; (2) encouraging students to take their own voice/standpoint (thoughts, feelings, insights, beliefs) seriously; (3) developing their public speaking skills to accomplish purposes that are meaningful to them; @) developing the ability to adape successfully to a variety of audiences and situa- tions without losing integrity with themselves. Repeated self-reflection throughout the course enables students of color to discover and develop their authentic voices and the skills to use those voices in a variety of public contexts. Self-reflection as a pedagogical tool draws upon sever- al strands of literature and research that emphasize three meta-communicative elements: an awareness of context, developing authentic voice, and self-reflective critique. The process emphasizes contextualization of sradent speeches and che discovering and development of authentic voice. Similar to the standpoint per spective elaborated above, the emphasis on context encourages students of color to draw on personally meaningful experiences, interests, and concerns when choosing and researching speech topics, since their speeches will not be discon- nected from their life situations, or standpoints. This emphasis provides a way for students to discover and develop their authentic voice. Students of color also encounter sef-reflective critique, which entails planning, acting, reflecting on the action, and using insights gained to inform the planning of subsequent action. As a part of self-reflective critique, leaming the skills of cognitive restructuring helps students to understand the workings of their own brains/bodies and provides a powerful tool for engaging realistically with the public speaking situation. Now let’ explore each of these three meta-communicative elements in more depth. CONTEXT Examining the nature of the context allows us to have a fuller understanding of what a student is bringing into the classroom, Current educational philosophy argues strongly for the importance of grounding learning in the reality of the lives 7364 Pedagogical Issues of students (see Kincheloe, Slattery, and Steinberg 2000; McDermott 1999) and using the classroom to learn skills that are transferable and meaningful to the rest of life, Part of the intention of Introductory Speech courses is to equip incoming freshmen with presentational skills so as to improve their chances of educational and professional success. However, students bring their lives with them to the classroom, and this provides a rich source of topics that are already meaningful to them, Students of color will necessarily bring aspects of their lives that are unique to their situations into this “public” context, which can help them bridge gaps of many kinds. Drawing on this wealth of the already-known increases students’ con- fidence and interest in speech assignments, which permits a greater integration of public speaking and group skills. Additionally, this increases the comfort of stu- dents when we ask them to do assignments that could produce anxiety, including anxieties specific to students of color. With an understanding of the possibilities inherent in attention to context, attention to helping students of color find and use their voice continues the empowerment. VOICE Clark (1999) has focused on a concern for silenced voices and on cultivating one’s authentic voice. Insights such as the “unarticulated self perishes” (Christ 1986) and “hearing into speech” (Morton 1985) suggest the importance of creating a space where each student's “voice” can be heard into existence, and each student can articulate her or his own experiences and meanings (see also Kincheloe, Slattery, and Steinberg 2000; McDermott 1999). Using the genuine interests and concerns of students of color as a source of speech topics and encouraging certain delivery skills help cultivate auchentic voice. Maintaining eye contact and spending sub- stantial portions of a speech with no lectem or table as a barrier between them- selves and their audience cultivate a sense in students that they can truly connect with others about what matters to them most, and that others find their “voice” worth hearing. Becoming aware of the role of one’s context and voice can be achieved by many means, some mentioned elsewhere in this essay. One particular approach that has proven effective is regular self-reflection about many aspects of one’s pub- lic speaking. SELF-REFLECTIVE CRITIQUE Drawing from cognitive psychology, personal reflection on the reality of what is happening versus distorted nonreality-based thinking is a proven method for deal- ing with anxiety (Burns 1999), including the common anxiety of speaking in pub- lic. Using self-reflective critiques about individual and group presentations throughout the course scems to successfully help students cognitively restructure 74‘Triece, Hill, Clerk, Lin, and Spiker 65 their thinking about the public speaking situation, decrease anxiety, and gain a sense of control over themselves (Dwyer 1998; Foss and Foss 1994; Lucas 2001). Self-reflective critique can be used after each speech assignment in the form of sense-maiing triangulation (Dervin and Clark 1999) to reflect on different aspects of the situation. Sense-making triangulation is a methodology that asks a person to reflect on the situation, gap, bridge, and outcome of a step they 27e taking, Applying this methodology to speech assignments, students are asked to consicler the following questions, after some time has passed (to allow the adrenaline to leave their bodies, and thus to facilitate more realistic thinking): (1) What did 1 want to accomplish in this speech? (2) What actually happened as I delivered the speech? (3) Did anything help? What? (4) Did anything not help? What? (5) What do I want to try next time? By using this triangulation, students begin to get a sense of how their own thinking can help or hinder them, and plan strategies to build on strengths and strengthen weaknesses. Self-reflective critique is grounded in the notion that students’ life experi- ences as members of marginalized groups play a central role in learning and cul- tivating speaking skills, As an empowering classroom tool, it encourages students to cultivate authentic voice and link daily experiences with classroom concepts. In addition to self-reflective critique, students of color can be empowered through classroom activities that encourage them to explore cultural identity. Cultural Identity as Empowerment As racial and ethnic diversity on college campuses grows, students are challenged with finding a means to maintain and strengthen their cultural identity while engaging successfully in the diverse environment. Introductory Speech courses provide an ideal environment in which students can examine the relationship between communication and cultural identity and can develop communication skills that will empower them as they live and work in a diverse world. Research in intercultural communication has generated much knowledge of identity and cultural adaptation (see Chen and Starosta 1998; Gudykunst and Kim 1997; Martin and Nakayama 1997; Samovar and Porter 2000). Identity develops through communication with others (Collier 2000; Hecht, Collier, and Ribeau 1993), and our culeural identities influence our communication with others. Fur- ther, individuals might have multiple cultural identities that are defined through communication with others (Collier 2000). How much individuals want to main- tain their own identity versus how much they want to become part of the new environment is one of the important issues that affects their adaptation to a cul- turally diverse environment (Martin and Nakayama 1997). Students’ identities are shaped by their racial and ethnic experiences as well as by their social interactions with family members, friends, schoolmates, and oth- 7566 Pedagogical Issues ers. Through a specific speaking assignment — the “Who I Am” speech — stu- dents can explore issues surrounding cultural identity and race/ethnic diversity. The “Who I Am” speech allows students to use a first-person voice to speak about their cultural experience and helps them develop positive impressions toward their racially and ethnically diverse classmates. Because it represents such a valuable learning opportunity, teachers would do well to use the “Who I Am” speech as the first graded speaking assignment, rather than merely as an ice-breaker (which is often the case in the Introductory Speech course). Through this assignment, stu- dents learn how racial, ethnic, and cultural diversity shapes their own beliefs, atti- tudes, and behaviors as well as those of others. This recognition helps maintain. and farther develop an individual’ cultural identity. Research for the “Who I Am” speech has two objectives. First, because their direct experience and access to cultures other than their own might be limited, students are to explore not only their own cultural experience but also that of other cultural groups through a variety of sources. Knowledge of other cultures can help them understand their own culture and identify the significant aspects of their experiences and the important issues in their life. Second, with the teacher's guidance, students are to search and evaluate the information pertaining to their culture and the issues with which they are connected. Based on their own experi- ence, students can examine the nature of the information, whether it is accurate or inaccurate and biased or unbiased. Students then will better understand the potential impact of communication (e.g., mass media) on their own life and other people’ lives as well. Additional benefits of the “Who I Am” speech come after the speeches are delivered. Teachers can select a few speeches and ask students to discuss them from their own perspectives/experiences. Students are to list the things they learned about a different culture and some things not covered that they want to know. They also document the unique features of the speaker’ delivery style and writing. Several objectives can be accomplished through such discussion. First, teachers can emphasize how culture influences our communication with others; for example, the verbal and nonverbal language used in the speeches and the opin- ions expressed in them, Second, teachers can demonstrate how communication, can help people better understand and respect the differences between cultures, and how miscommunication can yield negative effects such as prejudice and stereotyping, Third, and perhaps most important, critiquing speeches of cultural identity opens a direct dialogue between students with different cultural back- grounds, Communication is the means to overcome many barriers they face on culturally diverse campuses. ‘Through the “Who I Am” speech, students are exposed to the concepts of social diversity and multiculturalism; they learn about differences between race, ethnicity, and cultural groups; they come to understand the importance of com- munication in dealing with complex cultural issues; and more important, they pre- Pee 2Triece, Hil, Clark, Lin, and Spiker_67 pare themselves for cultural diversity in the classroom and the broader communi- ty. In conjunction with self-reflective critique, the “Who J Am” speech empowers students by enabling them to cultivate their own voices grounded in their experi- ences as members of marginalized groups. These exercises — when framed by the critical teaching philosophies elaborated on in this essay — encourage students and teachers to explore how material experiences rooted in and shaped by race andl ethnicity impact communication, including what one chooses to speak about, how one researches and delivers a speech, and how one’s message is interpreted. Learning Communities as Empowerment Teaching philosophies and classroom activites are only effective to the extent that they reach students “where they are” and encourage active engagement that fos- tersa deeper, more meaningful learning experience. So itis imperative that we dis- cover ways to engage our students, particularly students of color. Research has demonstrated that students stay engaged when they partici- pate in learning communities (Gabetnick et al. 1990), and engaged students suc- ceed in che university setting and their retention rates increase, More specifically, students of color benefit from the learning community model, which fosters an appreciation for diversity in the campus setting. The block scheduling of classes characteristic of learning communities encourages students of various back- grounds to spend more time together, and within the classroom they continue the dialogue with other students as they work together on projects. In research, par- ticipants in leaming communities express an appreciation for diversity — they were able to go beyond a stereotype and get to know an individual. THE LEARNING COMMUNITY MODEL The structure of the leaming community model varies — some might be pre- pared in exhaustive detail, while others are loosely structured (Goodsell et al. 1992; Shapiro and Levine 1999). Learning communities do share two character- istics: Scudents are scheduled together in several courses, and the faculty attempt to provide an intellectual bridge between the various courses. The university coor- dinates the grouping of faculty and courses and the block scheduling of students. In preparation, the faculty members meet to coordinate goals and assignments, then during the semester they meet periodically to discuss students’ progress and ways to achieve student success. Tinto, Love, and Russo (1994) discuss the use of learning communities to address students’ needs. Let's close this essay with a case study from our own campus, the University of Akron, where we have seen the benefits of the model for students of cofor. 7268 Pedagogical Issues APPLICATION ‘The assistant dean of the University College coordinates the leaning commwuni- ties for the University. (Other administrative structures are possible, as discussed by Shapiro and Levine 1999.) Coordination duties include the scheduling of stu- dents in blocks so they attend the same three courses, and holding meetings with the faculty members to encourage discussion. Three courses — Freshman Orien- tation, English Composition, and Effective Oral Communication (an Introducto- ry Speech course) — make up a typical learning community. Its faculty members coordinated course goals and assignments prior to the semester beginning. Then during the semester, they met to discuss each student’ grade, attitude, and progress. By working together and by letting the students know they worked together, the faculty were able to maintain close contact with each student. ‘The success of the learning community lies in the continued dialogue between faculty, between students, and between faculty and students. Students of color benefit from such engaged dialogue because it creates a sense of communi- ty within our large, urban, commuter school —a community that stems from, and draws upon, the specific standpoints of students with various racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic backgrounds, ‘The University is set in a metropolitan area of 2.8 million people. Within walking distance of downtown, it enrolls some 24,000 stu- dents. The University faces typical educational needs, which can be addressed by learning communities. As Goodsell etal. (1992) state: Learning communities directly confront multiple problems plequing under- ‘graduate education: the fragmentation of general-education classes, the iso- lation of students (especially on large campuses or commuter schools), the lack of meaningful connection building between classes, the need for greater intellectual interaction between students and faculty, and the lack of sus- tained opportunities for faculty development. (19) The learning community model offers a practical reform to the modern-day splin- tering effects of education (Lieberman 1996, 2000) by working within the current financial restraints (Kadel and Kechner 1994) of the typical university and offer- ing real benefits to students. BENEFITS Sharing similar schedules and the challenges of academic assignments forges bonds among learning community students. Students work together through group projects that might cross over traditional course boundaries. The learning community model encourages understanding and diversity. In our case, one stu- dent acknowledged that she developed friendships with students whom she typi- cally would not have come in contact with, as a result of her learning community. She leamed to appreciate diversity as a positive factor on the University campus. VETriece, Hill, Clark, Lin, and Spiker 69 Sonia Nieto (1999) addresses creating multicultural learning communities. Stu- dents’ views toward the world become more global and they develop more- inclusive perspectives. This increased awareness encourages civic participation (King 1997). Another student involved in our learning community leamed about student government in researching a speech for a Communication class, He sub- sequently ran for office in the Student Government Association. Studies indicate that students of color lag behind European-Ametican stu- dents in the rate at which they enroll in and complete college (Chesler and Malani 1993). When students participate in learning communities, however, grade-point averages and student retention rates increase. The retention rate for students invalved in our Fall 1999 learning communities was 89 percent, compared with an overall University retention rate of 83 percent. One student stated that he learned to study and his GPA was 3.9 during the semester he participated in a learning commu Students gain self-confidence as a result of the camaraderie that carries over between classes. This self-confidence is evident in behavioral changes. Gabelnick et al. (1990) report that students “form study groups and pay close attention to subgroups in the community” (59). Students develop a “sense of responsible citizenship” insofar as they “feel a community obligation to complete their assignments, attend class, and share their ideas with one another” (59). These positive behavioral changes ultimately contribute to success. ‘The leaming community model is based on block scheduling and faculty coordination to create an intellectual bridge. The University of Akron is one example of the successful incorporation of learning communities as part of’a school’s academic mission. In conjunction with critical teaching philosophies and specific classroom activities, learning communities assist in the development and success of students of color by creating an environment of empowering, engaged communication. Conclusion Communication classrooms hold the potential to create a learning environment that engages and empowers students who have historically been marginalized on college campuses. This essay explored pedagogies of empowerment, a teaching approach that builds on the insights that come out of diverse learning environ- ments. A central premise underlying pedagogies of empowerment is that students’ needs and perspectives are shaped, in part, by concrete material experiences, which must be recognized and engaged in order to promote student success. Crit- ical teaching perspectives informed by materialist and standpoint theories estab- lish an overall classroom philosophy that views both teaching and learning as the “practice of freedom” and that seeks to challenge dominant ideologies and insti- tutions that continue to marginalize students of calor. Through classroom activi- ties that center on self-reflection and cultural identity, students gain further expe- 79,70 Pedagogical Issues rience applying Communication concepts antd skills to their lived experiences in order to guin insight into the ways that discrimination can be challenged, in the classroom and the broader community. Finally, the learning community model provides an institution-wide means for creating classroom communities that explore diversity and devote attention to the needs of students of color. ‘The teaching philosophies and classroom activities explored in this essay do not exhaust the possibilities for pedagogies of empowerment. Rather they provide a starting point from which future studies could expand. As Communication teachers committed to ensuring the success of students of color, we all must con- tinue to develop teaching philosophies and classroom activities that speak to stu- dents’ real-life experiences, which have been marked by exclusion, discrimination, and marginalization, We must continue to explore how to make the Communi- cation classroom a place where dominant ideologies are challenged, diverse voic- ¢s are heard, and perhaps most important where motivation is fostered to apply Communication concepts to the broader community in order to transform our students’ world for the better. Notes 1. The general-education Speech cousse isa hybrid course that examines group commu- nication and public speaking. 2. The University of Akron has a population of 23,264 undergraduate and graduate stu- dents. Some 20% of the student population is minority or international students. Most students — about 90% — commute to campus. A substantial proportion are considered “nontraditional” — 41% are older than 25, and 37% of all students attend school part- time while holding part- or full-time jobs and meeting family responsibilities outside of school. 3. Throughout this essay, “material” and “materiality” are used to refer to a reality that ‘exists outside of, but is understood through, human discourse. For instance, students of color are affected not only by racist nguage and ideologies but also by racist structures and institutions that continue to shape their lives in very concrete ways. It is our con- tention that recognition of material structures and instinions, and knowledge of their impact, can be used as a starting point for engaging students of coler and for cultivating a dassroom environment where these institutions can be challenged. References Allen, WR, L. Bobo, and P. Freuranges. (1984), Preliminary Report: 1982 Undergraduate Survey of Black Undergraduate Students Attending Predominantly White, ‘State Supported Universities. Ann Arbor, MI: Center of Afro-American and Asian Studies. 80Triece, Hill, Clark, Lin, and Spiker 71 Burbules, N.C, and R. Berk, (1999). “Critical Thinking and Critical Pedagogy: Relations, Differences, and Limits.” In Critical Theories in Education: Changing Terrains of Knrledge and Politic, edited by TS. Popkewitz and L. Fendles, pp. 45-65. New York: Routledge. Burns, D.D. (1999). The Feeling Good Handbook. Rev. ed. New York: Plume. Carlson, D., and M.W, Apple. (1998). Power/Kowledge/Pedagogy: The Meaning of Democratic Education in Unsetling Times, Boulder, CO: Westview. Chen, G.-M., and WJ, Starosta. (1998). Foundations of Interculteral Commnzcicaton. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Chesler, M., and A. Malani, (1993). “Perceptions of Faculty Behavior by Students of Color.” The Michigen Journal of Political Science 162 $4-79. Christ, CP. (1986). Diving Deep and Surfacing: Women Writers on Spiritual Quest. 3rd ed. Boston: Beacon. Clark, K.D. (December 1999), “A Communication-as-Procedure Perspective on a Women’ Spiritual Group: A Sense-Making and Ethnographic Exploration of a Communicative Proceduring in Feminist Small Group Process.” Tée Electronic Journal of Commrunication/ La Revue Electronique de Camemamication 9 (2-4), [Online at http//www.cios.org/www/ejerec2.hm} Collier, MJ. (2000). “Understanding Cultural Identities in Intercultural Communication: ‘A Ten-Step Inventory.” In Interclaeral Communication: A Reader; edited by L.A. Samovar and RE. Porter, pp. 16-33. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Collins, PH. (1986). “Learning From the Outsider Within: The Sociological Significance of Black Feminist Thought.” Social Problems 33: 14-32. ———. (1990), Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness and the Politics of Empowerment. New York: Routledge, Capman and Hall. Cross, WE. (1985). “Black Identity: Rediscovering the Distinction Between Personal Identity and Reference Group Orientation.” In Beginnings: The Social and Affective Development of Black Children, edited by M.B. Spenset, GK. Brookins, and WR. Allen, pp. 131-155. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Dervin, B., and K.D. Clark. (December 1999). “Exemplars of the Use of the Sense- Making Methodology (Meta-Theory and Method): Introduction to the Sense~ ‘Making Issues of the Electronic Journal of Communication.” The Electronic Journal of Comnmunicarion/ La Revue Flecronique de Communication 9 (2), (Online at hitps/Awwwcios.org/www/ejcrec? hem} Dwyer, K-K. (1998). Conquer Your Speechfright: Learn Hw to Overcome the Nersoamess of Public Speaking, New York: Harcourt Brace. Ellsworth, F. (1992). “Why Doesn't This Feel Empowering? Working Through the Repressive Myths of Critical Pedagogy.” In Feminisms and Critical Pedagogy, edited by CL. and J. Gore, pp. 90-119. New York: Routledge. si72_ Pedagogical Issues Feagin, JR. (1992). “The Continuing Significance of Racism: Discrimination Against Black Students in White Colleges.” Jouarnal of Black Studies 22(4): 546-578. Fisher, B.A. (1980). Small Group Decision Making. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. Fleming, J. (1984). Blacks in College. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Ford, WS., and A.D. Wolvin. (1993). “The Differential Impact of a Basic ‘Communication Course on Perceived Communication Competencies in Class, ‘Work, and Social Contexts.” Conmmtenication Education 42(3): 215-223 Foss, SXK., and K.A. Foss, (1994), lnoiting Transformation: Presentatinal Speaking for a (Changing World, Prospect Heights, TL: Waveland. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Seabury. Gabelnick, F, J. MacGregor, RS. Matthews, and B.L. Smith, (1990), “Teaching in Learning Communities.” In Learning Communities: Creating Connections Among Siudents, Faculty, and Dixiplines, edited by RE. Young, pp. 53-60. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Gibbs, JT (1973). “Black Students/ White University: Different Expectations.” Personal sand Guidance Journal 51: 463-469. Giroux, HLA. (1983). Theory and Resistance in Education. South Hadley, MA: Bergin Garvey, ——.,,C. Lankshear, P. McLaren, and M. Peters. (1995). Counternarratives: Cultural ‘Studies and Critical Pedagogies in Postmodern Spaces. New York: Routledge. Giroux, FLA, and P. McLaren, (1989). Critical Pedagogy, the State, and Cultural Struggle. Albany, NY: State University of New York. —— , eds. (1994). Betiween Borders: Pedagogy and the Politics of Cultural Studies. New York: Routledge. Goodsell, A.S., M. Maher, V. Tinto, BL. Smith, and J. MacGregor. (1992). Collaborative Learning: A Sourcebook for Higher Education. University Park, PA: National Center ‘on Postsecondary Teaching, Leaning, and Assessment. Gore, J. (1992). “What We Can Do For You! What Can 'We' Do For ‘You'?: Struggling ‘Over Empowerment in Critical and Feminist Pedagogy.” In Feminioms and Critical Pedagogy, edited by C. Luke and J. Gore, pp. 54-71. New York: Routledge. —— . (1998). “On the Limits to Empowerment Through Critical and Feminist Peda- gogies.” In Prwer/Knmledge/Pedagogy: The Meaning of Democratic Education in Unsettling Times, edited by D. Carlson and M.W. Apple, pp. 271-288. Boulder, CO: Westview. Gudyianst, W.B,, and V.Y. Kim, eds. (1997). Conmmamicating With Strangers: An Approach to Interculeeral Communication. 3rd ed, New York: McGraw-Hill. Harding, S. (1986). The Science Question in Feminism. ithaca, NY: Comell University Press, 82‘Triece, Hill, Clark, Lin, and Spiker 73 —— . (1987). “Conclusion: Epistemological Questions.” In Feminism and Methodology: Social Science Isues, edired by S. Harding, pp. 181-190. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. ——. (1991), Whase Science? Whose Knaoledge? Thinking From Women's Lives. Whaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Hartsock, N. (1983). “The Feminist Standpoint: Developing the Ground for a Specifically Feminist Historical Materialism.” In Dizovering Reality, edited by S. Harding and M.B. Hliniitka, pp, 283-310. Amsterdam: D. Reidel. - (1997). “Comment on Hekman’ “Truth and Method: Feminist Standpoine ‘Theory Revisited’: Truth or Justice?” Signs 22(2): 367-374. Hecht, M.L., MJ. Collier, and S.A. Ribeau, (1993). African American Communication: Ethnic Mdentity and Cultural Interpretation, Newbury Park, CA: Sage. hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to Transgress: Education asthe Practice of Freedore. New York: Routledge. June, LLN,, BP. Curry, and C.L. Gear. (1990). “An 11-Year Analysis of Black Students? Expectations of Problems and Use of Services: Implications for Counseling, Professionals.” Journal of Counseling Prychology 37(2): 178-184. Kadel, S., and J.A. Keehner. (1994). Calahorative Learning: A Sourcebook for Higher Education, Volume Il. University Park, PA: National Center on Postsecondary “Teaching, Learning, and Assessment. Kincheloe, J.L,, P. Sfatery, and S.R. Steinberg. (2000). Contextualizing Teaching: Introduction to Education and Educational Foundations. New York: Addison Wesley * Longman. King, PM. (1997). “Character and Civic Education: What Does It Take?” The Educational Record 783-4): 87-93. Lieberman, A. (1996). “Creating Intentional Learning Commuttites.” Educational Leadership 54): 51-55. —— . (2000). “Networks as Learning Communities: Shaping the Future of Teacher Development.” Journal of Teacher Education 51(3): 221-227. Lucas, S.E. 2001). The Art of Public Speaking. Teh ed. Boston/New York: McGraw-Hill Luke, C. (1992). “Feminist Poitis in Radical Pedagogy.” In Feminioms and Critical Pedagogy, edited by C. Luke and J. Gore, pp. 25-53. New York: Routledge. and J. Gore, eds. (1992). Feominioms and Critical Pedagogy. New York: Routledge ‘Martin, J.N., and TK. Nakayama, eds, (1997). Intercultural Comereunication in Contest ‘Mountain View, CA: Mayfield, ‘Marx, K., and F Engels. (1986, orig. 1846). The German Ideology, introduction and edited by CJ. Arthur. New York: International Publishers. ‘McDermott, J.C, ed. (1999). Beyond the Silence: Listening far Democracy, Portsmouth, NH: Heineman, 8374 Pedagogical Issues McLaren, P. (1994), “Multiculturalism and the Postmodern Critique: Toward a Pedagogy of Resistance and Transformation.” In Between Borders: Pedagogy and the Politic of Cultural Studies, edited by HLA. Giroux and P, McLaren, pp. 192-222. New York: Routledge. ——. and K. Gutierrez. (1998). “Global Politics and Local Antagonisms: Research and Practice as Dissent and Possibility.” In Power/Knowledge/Pedagogy: The Meaning of Democratic Education in Unsetling Tames, edited by D.Carlson and M.W. Apple, pp. 305-340. Boulder, CO: Westview. Mino, M. (1988). “Making the Basic Public Speaking Course Relevant: Is It Preparing Students With Work-Related Public Speaking Skills?” The Speech Communication Teacher 3(1): 14, ‘Mohanty, CT. (1994). “On Race and Voice: Challenges for Liberal Education in the 1990s.” In Between Borders: Pedagogy and the Politics of Cultural Studies, edited by HA. Giroux and P. McLaren, pp. 145-166. New York: Routledge. ‘Morton, N, (1985). The Journey Is Home. Boston: Beacon. Ng, R., P Staton, and J. Scane, eds. (1995). Anti-Racioms, Feminiom, and Critical Approaches to Education. Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey. Nieto, S. (1999). The Light in Their Byes: Creating Multicultural Learning Connmtnitis, New York: Teachers College Press Pavitt, C., and E. Curtis. (1994). Simall Group Discusion: A Theoretical Approach, Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch Scarisbrick. Popkewitz, TS., and L. Fendler, eds. (1999). Critica! Theories in Education: Changing ‘Terrains of Knoroledge and Polis. New York: Routledge. Rerai-Rashti, G. (1995), “Multicultural Education, Anti-Racist Education, and Critical Pedagogy: Reflections on Everyday Practice.” In Anti-Racism, Feminism, and Critical Approaches to Education, edited by R. Ng, P. Staton, and J. Scane, pp. 3-19. ‘Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey. Samovar, L.A.,and R.E. Porter, eds. (2000). Intercultural Communication: A Reader Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Shapiro, N.S., and J.HI. Levine. (1999). Creating Learning Communities: A Practica! Guide to Winning Support, Organizing for Change, and Implementing Programs, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Smith, D. (1987). The Everyday World as Problematic A Feminist Sociology. Boston Northeastern University Press. Styles-Hughes, M. (1987). “Black Students’ Participation in Higher Education.” Journal of College Student Personnel 41: 523-544. Taylor, C.A. (1986). “Black Students on Predominantly White College Campuses in the 1980s.” Journal of College Student Personnel 27: 196-201 84Triece, Hill, Clark, Lin, and Spiker 75 ‘Tinto, V., AG. Love, and P. Russo. (1994). Building Learning Communities for New College Srudenes: A Suammary of Research Findings of the Collaborative Learning Project. ‘University Park, PA: National Center on Postsecondary ‘Teaching, Leaning, and Assessment. ‘Tubbs, $.L. (1988). A Systems Approach to Small Group Interaction. New York: Random House. Will, VC., GJ. Galanes, and $.B. Love. (1987). “Small, Talk-Oriented Groups: Conflict, Conflict Management, Satisfaction and Decision Quality.” Small Group Bebaviar 18: 31-55. Wille, C., and A. McCord, (1973). Black Students at White Cages. New York: Praeger. ‘Wood, J. (1992). “Gender and Moral Voice: Moving From Women’s Nature to Standpoint Epistemology.” Women's Studies in Commmication 15: 1-24. ‘Zweigenhafi, R.L., and M.L. Cody. (1993). ““The Self-Monioring of Black Students on a Predominately White Campus.” The Journal of Social Pycbology 133(I): 5-10.Reshaping Rhetorical Rivers Climate, Communication, and Coherence in the Basic Speech Course Mark Lawrence McPhail, Ronald B, Scott, and Kathleen M. German the three students stood a few feet apart in the locker room, two speaking and one overhearing their conversation, as they all changed clothes. One of the two students engaged in the casual conversation remarked how he was thinking about transferring from Miami University to another university elsewhere in Ohio. “L was considering the University of Cincinnati because a lot of my friends go there, But I think that Pd rather go to Xavier University.” “How come?” said the other student. “Well, last time I went to visit I walked around off campus, you know, in the neighborhood around the school, and it wasn't the kind of place T wanted to be. Tes in a bad part of town, you know.” “Yeah, like the ghetto.” “Definitely the ghetto,” The conversation occurred between two young European-American men, who stood less than five feet from the third student, an African-American man. As the ‘wo white students walked by him, one heading to the same class he was about to attend, the black student wondered to himself whether they had any idea how uncomfortable their comments had made him feel, and how it was that the white student who had decided not to attend the University of Cincinnati had come to believe that it was in a “bad” part of town. Had he been accosted or followed? Had someone called him a bad name, or used a racial sur? Or had he simply seen noth ing more than people different from himself, people whom he could only see through his “inner eyes,” who were for all intents and purposes invisible to him as people. People who were just like this black student standing a few feet away, with whom he shared a classroom experience and, evidently, not much more. ‘We begin with this anecdote because we, like Mary Patterson McPherson, former president of Bryn Mawr College, believe that the students of color “most comfortable at whatever college they [attend] also [tend] to be the most success- ful academically” (in Bowen and Bok 1998: 82). McPherson's comments suggest that any attempt to address the academic success of students of color must ulti- mately deal with the issue of climate, and we agree. In this essay, we will amplify her observations to consider how the intellectual and institutional climates that 56 76MePhail, Scott, and German 77 students of color are likely to face in basic Communication courses have the potential to ensure — or injure — their chances of success. Our focus is first on the social and institutional contexts that circumnscribe how and what faculty teach and evaluate, and then on those specific curricular strategies that might transform the atmosphere and outcomes of the basic Public Speaking course. That is, while we wish to offer some insights into the importance of pedagogical and curricular strategies for creating inclusive and affirmative cli- mates for student learning, we believe that it is equally important, if not more important, to carefully consider what impact beliefs and assumptions about iden- tity and difference have on the ability to create such climates. If we are to success- fully reshape Communication curricula in ways that will encourage conversations about inclusive teaching and learning and the importance of larger diversity issues across disciplines, then we must acknowledge the social exigencies and cultural impediments to education and communication that inhibit the success of students of color anid continue to cripple the moral and intellectual development of large numbers of European-American students and faculty. Initially, we shall consider one of the more important contemporary studies addressing the issue of climate generally, and reframe one of the observations made by its authors about racial difference and identity. Next, we will examine one particular university’ efforts to address issues of inclusivity at an institutional level, and consider how those efforts suggest that an enlarged understanding of diversi- tyiscritical to transforming the cultural and intellectual climates within which stu- dents of color must function. Finally, we will discuss how we might recognize the Public Speaking class, one of the most essentially basic courses in Communica tion, as an arena within which students of different backgrounds and experiences might renegotiate their relationships with themselves and one another. Our pur- pose is to establish a theoretical framework for examining the institutional and attitudinal impediments to diversity efforts, chen segue between theory and prac- tice by examining an existing university program that cuts across the curriculum, and finally synthesize the theoretical and practical insights into a program of implementation that can reshape pedagogical practice and redefine what it means to be a good person who speaks well. The challenge facing Communication scholars of conscience, we believe, is twofold: We must recognize how our discipline and the society in which ie evolved are implicated in the creation of contexts that devalue diversity and undermine an appreciation of difference. And, we must be willing to embrace perspectives and positions within our field that, although not in the mainstream, offer opportuni- ties for reshaping the intellectual tributaries of our discipline and redefining the stream of our collective moral consciousness. 8778 Pedagogical Isues Some Consequences of Reconsidering Race, Identity, and Difference In The Shape of the River: Long-Term Consequences of Considering Race in College and Univesity Admisions, William G. Bowen and Derek Bok (1998) comment on the effect of climate on students of color at several of America’ academically selective universities. Their scady, which examines personal histories as well as statistical data, suggests that climate plays an important role in determining the success of students of eolor in general and African-American students in particular: ‘The academic performance of a number of black students seemed clearly affected by dificulties in adjusting to new environments. Feelings of in- security are by no means limited to any single group of students. Stil, black ‘students may feel them with special intensity (along with other minority stu- dents and some low-[socioeconomic status] white students). (82) Because academic institutions reflect the beliefs and assumptions of a particular class, race, or gender, students whose identities and experiences fall outside those social and symbolic boundaries often suffer academically and face difficulties adjusting to unfamiliar intellectual and cultural contexts. To succeed, both aca- demically and socially, black students, other students of color, and white students of low socioeconomic status are often forced to conform to dominant institu- tional and attitudinal norms. Learning how to adjust to contexts and norms different from what they are used to — that is, “learning to cope with diversity” (1998: 222) — is an especially critical skill for African-American students to gain, assert Bowen and Bok: Because of their minority status, it has to be much harder for black Ameri- cans . .. to contemplate “doing wel” in life they are unable to work effec- tively with members of the white majority. They have no choice but to take seriously the importance of "getting along,” (221-222) From this, Bowen and Bok conclude that the educational value of learning to cope with diversity may well be even greater for black students than for white students — in spite of the fact that ‘much of the discussion of diversity focuses on ways in which white students are presumed to learn from black classmates. (222) While we agree with Bowen and Bok’s assessment of the significance of cli mate and the importance of learning to cope with diversity for African-American students’ success, we question any implication that the lessons of diversity might be more important for students of color than for white students, That is, if, as Bowen and Bok suggest, the focus has been on what white students can learn about diversity from their classmates’ black identity, then it is clear to us that not enough thought has been given to white identity and its impact on the creation of climates in which diversity is valued. Why might this be? As Robert Terry argued almost 30 years ago, “to be white in America is to not have to think about it” RRMcPhail, Scott, and German 79 (1982: 120). Thus, any attempt to create a culture of inclusion in university and college classrooms must directly deal with the extent to which whiteness is seen as the norm as it impacts the beliefs and assumptions of European-American stu- dents and faculty. Our reframing of Bowen and Bok’s point in The River is influenced by a sig- nificant amount of contemporary research in Education and Communication, As ‘Maurianne Adams observes, ‘The general absence of conscious cultural identity among many Euro- ‘American students . . . obscures the larger issue of cultural difference, reduces all cultural experience to a single dominant norm, and dismisses as frivolous the culture-consciousness of nontraditional students who want to stress and value their own ethnic roots. (1992: 6) Adams also examines the impact that faculty have on creating and sustaining class- room climates that can disadvantage and disempower students of color: “The role of college faculty in consciously or unconsciously transmitting a dominant cultur- al system is especially important in addressing present challenges, since, in higher education, all roads fead back to faculty, who have control of matters of teaching, evaluation, and curriculum” (1992: 7). Faculty play a particularly critical role in creating context for inclusivity and valuing diversity, explains Adams, and many have begun to recognize that creat- ing a context for enhancing diversity demands that faculty address more than what students of color might or might not be capable of teaching white students. They must also address what white students have been taught co believe about them- selves — and its consequences. “On many college campuses, efforts to preserve gains of the civil rights movement are yielding a growing white backlash,” explains Christine Sleeter, “as white students fear that they are now the victims and targets Of systematic racism” (1997; ix). This ideology of innocence, which has surfaced in classrooms across the country, undermines the possibility for white students to speak openly and honestly about race with black students in particular and with students of color in general. Indeed, the “recovery of race” (Gresson 1995) that lately characterizes much of white discourse reflects the psychological anxieties brought about by an increas- ingly pluralistic and multicultural society in which European Americans must come face-to-face with difference on a daily basis. There are significant conse- quences for communication, especially those forms of communication that place a premium on self-reflexivity and affirmative interaction. Sleeter continues: Cross-racial dialogue about racism, which involves white people, however, is rate and difficuit to develop and sustain. Dialogue requires that people be able to articulate some analysis of racism and one’s own pasition in a racist structure, one's own feeling and experiences, and the choices one has for acting differently. Most white people do not talk about racism, do not recog- nize the existence of institutional racism, and feel personally threatened by the mention of racism. (1997: x) 8980 Pedagogical Issues ‘The lack of constructive communication about race between white people and people of color and the rhetoric of denial that characterizes European-American discourse on race have been addressed by Communication scholars interested in the ways in which language constructs difference and identity (see van Dijk 1987; ‘McPhail 1994). Communication researchers also have examined the ways in which education itself influences racial understanding and misunderstanding in increasingly subtle and insidious ways. Among them, Rosalee Clawson and Elizabeth Kegler (2000) have examined how race is “coded” in textbook discussions of poverty. Their examination of American Government textbooks reveals that portrayals of poverty are “much more likely to reinforce existing (erroneous and insidious) beliefs regarding black citizens in our society than to challenge prevailing stereotypes or undermine racism” (184), Because textbook portrayals of poverty have a potentially detri- mental effect on students, who generally view such portrayals as “objective” accounts of “reality,” Clawson and Kegler are very interested in the role of pro- fessors and publishing companies in perpetuating a distorted understanding of relationships between poverty and race. “In the world of textbook publishing, pro- fessors make the acquisition decisions Is it the case that publishing companies are simply providing professors with textbooks that resonate with their predisposi- tions?” (2000: 185). Or, they ask, is it possible that the racial coding of poverty might be perpetuated by the publishers themselves, which “may have an ideolog- ical interest in promoting visual depictions of the poor that reinforce existing inequities in our society” (185)? Given the extensiveness of this misinforrnation and miseducation and the failure of educational institutions themselves to inter- rogate the social and symbolic realities of racial privilege, it is not difficult to understand how students could uncritically conflate race and poverty, seeing the ‘wo as isomorphic: “Definitely the ghetto.” Indeed, as van Dijk’ research reveals, educational institutions are deeply implicated in the perpetuation of racial privilege. He writes that “neither the con- tent and style of educational discourse nor the organization of education exactly favors a point of view that might challenge the extant power relations in Euro- peanized societies” (1993: 238). The result, he suggests, is the creation and per- petuation of academic climates that undermine the success of students of color. “Lacking identification and recognition, and confronted with many subtle and blatant forms of everyday racism in textbooks, classrooms, or playgrounds, rity students face 2 challenge that has obvious repercussions on their performance” (238). Although van Dijk contends that the defense of whiteness is directly related to the problems that students of color face in academic contexts and communities, he indicates also that the climate it creates undermines the capacity for white stu- dents to critically interrogate their own identities. Whereas students of color gO 4McPhail, Scott, and German 84 develop strategies for resistance to the negative messages they encounter on @ reg. ular basis, white students “are largely prevented from acquiring the fundamental knowledge and attitudes that prepare them for a more critical role in society” (240), Van Dijk’s research, like that of a number of race-relations scholars, prompts us to critically reconsider the roles of race, identity, difference, and priv- ilege in defining the exigencies and constraints facing Communication educators committed to creating more-inclusive classroom communities. Reshaping What We Mean by “Race” The current rhetorical situation of race relations in America is marked by an imperfect understanding of the role of racial privilege and entidlenrent, imperfect in that its material and economic consequences have been erased from the minds of most white Americans. “Whites, according to polls,” explains Harlon L. Dalton, “do not view the current racial malaise as their responsibility” (1995: 7). Dalton argues that this denial, while perhaps understandable, is ultimately “wronghead ed,” since it leads to a distortion of history, a retreat from reason, and the that African Americans are simply the victims of their own self-destructive behav- ior. He concludes that “unless ‘one attributes the community’ self-inflicted wounds to some character defect inherent in the race, we cannot simply dismiss the lively possibility that white indifference and ‘benign neglect’ have contributed to the problem” (8). Unfortunately, contemporary discourse on race would seem to indicate that most white Americans have done just that — opted for the “char- acter defect” explanation. Further compounding this misperception is the tendency for contemporary discussions of difference and diversity to reduce race to black and white and ignore the complex elements of social stratification and subordination chat are factors in the lives of many Americans of color. Thus, while an understanding of the role of whiteness is necessary, itis by no means sufficient for the reshaping of our intel- lectual and cultural climates. A reshaping of the very idea of race is also called for. EXPANDING OUR UNDERSTANDING OF DIFFERENCE AND DIVERSITY ‘The 1968 Kerner commission report, in addressing issues of black/white r: discord in this country, warned: “Our nation is moving toward two societies, one black, one white — separate and unequal.” Now, more than three decades later, that warning could be modified to acknowledge that the nation is moving toward a divide on not only black/white relations but also brown/white, black/brown, male/female, young/old, and on and on. In effect, today we are moving toward a nation — regardless of our growing need to function collectively — that is more segregated and separated on more dimensions than ever and less able to commu- nicate across those lines. We see rifts between diverse groups only exacerbated by 9182 Pedagogical Issues growing and destructive ignorance of “the other,” in which rumor, myths, sterco- types, and miscommunication supplant informed, accurate understanding, While conversations about diversity generally imply a broader understand- ing of the various differences that members of American society bring to the table of our common destiny, such conversations too often turn back to discussions of race in terms of black and white. This conversational tum continues to occur in spite of an enormous amount of data showing that America is becoming a multi- cultural population with global interests and connections. At the level of social and institutional policy, the need to reframe race in terms of diversity is critical. S ologist William Julius Wilson (1999), in the conclusion of his recent work on racial inequality in American society, concurs: “Adequate political solutions to the global economic problems confronting the majority of Americans will not be found until white, black, Latino, Asian, and Native Americans begin thinking more about what they have in common and less about their differences” (117). Consequently, Wilson suggests that we must not only rethink, revitalize, and rearticulate our own founding principles but also come to grips with the potential human bonding and cultural growth that can occur if diversity is viewed as a pos- itive resource for intellectual growth, change, and nation building. At the same time, he notes, the nation must acknowledge and realize that embracing diversity and achieving equity, as the past informs us, will be no easy matter: “Given the racial friction that has adversely affected intergroup relations, particularly in urban America, the formation of a multiracial reform coalition to pursue a mass-based economic agenda is likely to be difficult” (123). Although Wilson is primarily concerned with the larger economic and political conse- quences of social division and stratification, he also addresses the impact of “cul- tural racism” on the potential for building coalitions in educational institutions. ‘The assumptions of cultural racism support the notion that minorities suffer dis- proportionately from poverty and inequality because of something inherent in the contents of their characters. Wilson explains that “cultural racism, not only in ‘educational institutions butalso in other public and private institutions of Ameri- ‘can society, impedes the progress of blacks and other minorities, and ultimately reinforces individual cultural racist beliefs about their traits and capabilities” (8). ‘The unfortunate result of cultural racism is that it undermines the possibility of constructive dialogue and coalition building: “Many white Americans are more likely to have an unfavorable impression of African Americans and therefore [are] less likely to join forces with them in a common endeavor” (18-19). While Wil- son's focus is on black and white Americans, his analysis of racial antagonism is clearly concemed with the need for contemporary dialogues about diversity to move beyond black/white conceptions of race. In terms of its educational implications, Wilson’ analysis suggests that mov- ing forward and establishing meaningful understanding and productive relations will require honest dialogues, difficult (though not hostile) confrontations, and a 92McPhail, Scott, and German 83 willingness to learn from others to explore issues and experiences across the boundaries that currently fragment the community. Thus, to appreciate diversity, each member of the community will need to engage in reflection and meaningful discussions about all forms of difference, Put another way, we must learn to com- municate with one another across the divides, to move beyond debate and toward dialogue. But by dialogue we mean more than simply discussion, we mean a con- sciously nonoppositional discursive strategy, “2 communicative process that reflects social experience in order to understand the social and historical forces at work” (Adams 1997: 39) in our interactions with one another. Maurianne Adams describes dialogue in precisely these terms, and views it as a pedagogical strategy for educating individuals about social justice and diversity. Drawing upon the work of Freire and others, she acknowledges the capacity for such dialogue to enhance critical and self-reflexive understanding, and to provide students with the intellec~ tual and empathic resources necessary “to name and discuss ‘coded situations” 39). Like Adams, Communication scholars also see che value of dialogue as a potentially transformative strategy for understanding and appreciating diversity. Sally Miller Gearhart (1979) articulation of a “womanized” rhetoric and Mark ‘McPhail’ (1995) theory of “rhetorical coherence” both emphasize dialogue as a nonoppositional, nonconfrontational alternative to the persuasive emphases of traditional rhetoric, We shall return to this conception of dialogue below to illus- trate how it offers a viable vehicle for understanding and appreciating diversity within the context of the basic course in Communication. . However, for any Communication program to contribute to improving campus climate for all students (including students of color), we must remember that success is possible only by focusing on the development of the complete stu- dent, with a particular emphasis on his or her individual identity. Quality educa tion in today’s environment facilitates such development by stimulating students to appreciate their own cultural backgrounds; the diversity of cultural back- grounds they will encounter on and off campus; and understanding other signifi- cant aspects of identity such as race, gender, sexual preference, physical ability, social class, religious belief, and different value hierarchies. Such an approach to education and development reflects the process of what Aaron David Gresson (1995) describes as “enlargement,” a strategy for self- recovery thats inclusive and integrative. Gresson explains that enlargement “can- not occur as sleight of hand” or be “gerrymandered into vitality and integrity” (214), Iecannot, in short, simply be a quick fix; instead it must “be part of a global, species-specific maturation, But it requires that we collectively begin the syste- matic rebuilding of a healthier, more inclusive set of formative images” (214). ‘Those images, Gresson suggests, demand that we see racial difference in relation to its many shades, and diversity in terms of its numerous nuances: “We must delimit these images enough to inspire identification and involvement, yet make nae84 Pedagogical Issues them expansive enough to embrace the integrity of world communities” (214). Gresson’ transformative vision, like those of Wilson, Adams, and Gearhart, acknowledges the need to understand diversity in terms of not only race but also class, gender, and other shades of difference. Ivis the same vision that informs our own university’ attempt to affirm the value of diversity, through an institutional- ly initiated program called “Mosaic.” FROM THEORY TO PRACTICE AT MIAMI UNIVERSITY Like many colleges and universities across the country, Miami University (Ohio) was faced with all of the challenges that accompany attempts to address issues of overall climate and diversity on campus. As a predominantly white campus chal- lenged with improving diversity in terms of raw numbers and representation of minority populations, Miami was realizing that improving numbers without actu- ally altering the campus climate would solve litle. In fact, as a result of many long and impassioned discussions, many at Miami came to understand that regardless of the composition of the student/faculty body, students from diverse backgrounds would not remain or feel comfortable in the current environment, regardless ofall recruiting and support efforts. At the same time, Miami recognized that its homogenous composition was not effectively preparing its students for an increas- ingly diverse world. The Mosaic program was the university's response. ‘Mosaic was consciously developed at Miami University to improve the edu- cational environment, and to create a climate where each member of the academ- ic community could engage others and learn from their individual experiences and knowledge in an atmosphere as open and hospitable to all as possible. The pro- gram emphasizes several goals and principles, with recommendations to bring about the changes necessary to improve the existing campus environment. Its objectives were to create an environment that: 1 is safe and free from harassment and discrimination for all members of the community, and especially for members of underrepresented groups; © would facilitate each student’ ability and opportunity to learn about his or her own unique cultural identity; and © would facilitate each student’ learning and appreciation of national cul- tures different from his or her own, Inall respects, the recommendations were designed to make the environment on ‘Miami University’s campus open and receptive to difference and diversity, and to begin the process of communication across the divides. Success of the Mosaic program has not yet been definitively measured, but an anecdote might indicate its potential to create change and reframe diversity issues. At a recent meeting of administrators in which the adoption of a diversity 94.McPhail, Scott, and German 85 requirement was being discussed, one associate dean who had been actively involved in Mosaic was asked whether the program had been successful in its attempts to change student attitudes and beliefS. “I can't be sure about the effect it’ had on the students,” he remarked, “but I sure know that it has transformed me.” His comments indicate to us that the Mosaic program has the potential to successfully address issues of climate and diversity on our campus. Central to that success, we believe, was the realization that faculty could be trained through interactive, dialogical programs to recognize the factors that silence people, and trained to address those problems when they surfaced. This dialogic emphasis helped faculty reshape their own understandings of difference and identity and better understand the points of view of their students, and it offered insights into how they might conduct their own classes in ways that would create more comfortable learning atmospheres. ‘Many faculty discovered that diversity was less about the numbers of stu- dents and faculty of color on campus than it was about the ability of an individual to create an environment in which people could speak to one another without silencing anyone else. That discovery has critical implications for the discipline of Communication and our ability to successfully create similar environments in our basic classes. Explains Lori J. Carrell: “Increasing awareness of diversity has gen- erated introspection, discussion, and change in many disciplines at many univer~ sities in this country. .. The [Clommunication discipline is no exception to this national trend” (1997; 234). Carrell’ essay is one of the few systematic assessments of diversity initiatives in the Communication curriculum. While her main empha- sis is on facilitating student empathy, her conclusions have implications for facul- ty as well. “Complete integration of multiculturalism into our discipline,” she writes, “will involve infusing, adding, and changing our curriculum and pedagogy” (243), So what might those infusions, additions, and changes look like in one of ‘our discipline’s most basic courses, in Public Speaking? Reshaping Rhetoric ‘TRANSFORMING THE BASIC COURSE IN PUBLIC SPEAKING ‘The comments of that associate dean about the success of the Mosaic program invite us to consider how Communication curricula might be similarly transfor- mative, not only for faculty but also for students, If the key to enabling inclusion is the creation ofa classroom climate that celebrates diversity, then each of us must assess the assumptions upon which we base our teaching style and course design, recognizing limitations and barriers to cultivating an inclusive classroom. This is particularly important in introductory courses such as Interpersonal Communica tion and Public Speaking, becavse such courses are often students’ first experience Ci86 Pedagogical Issues of the Communication discipline. Yet, that assessment can be extremely difficult, even for educators commit- ted to diversity and social justice. Maurianne Adams quotes bell hooks’ observa- tions that even teachers who have no trouble “embracing new ways of thinking ‘may still be as resolutely attached to old ways of practicing teaching as their more conservative colleagues” (1997: 30). Nowhere are these attachments more pro- nounced, we would suggest, chan in our basic courses. Yet, those courses offer sin- gular opportunities for faculty to engage issues of inclusion and demonstrate the ways that communication sensitivity can transform ourselves and others. Such ideas of inclusion are deeply embedded in the history of our discipline. From its early rhetorical tradition to the emergence in this century of the discipline of Communication, ours is a hybrid of disciplines as we recognize our connections to Poetics, Philosophy, Psychology, Sociology, Political Science, Critical Studies. This position — at the intersection of many academic disciplines — offers us a unique opportunity to engage students in reflections on their own identities. The prospects for addressing inclusion are more apparent in the basic Interpersonal ‘Communication course, because it centers on individuals engaged in dyadic inter- actions; but the Public Speaking course presents a challenge, because it has evolved through a relatively unchanged and unchallenged set of parameters for effective public address, Paradoxically, these parameters arose from Greco-Roman cultures that rec- ognized the inherent right of citizens to participate in their own governance, even as they suppressed a majority of the population by excluding them from the pub- lic forum, Perhaps our own tradition of public address education exhibits a simi- lar internal paradox. That is, while valuing the act of public expression, conven- tional Public Address courses sanction unexamined assumptions about public advocacy. Our courses frequently adopt the models of Greece and Rome without further examination. This lack of reflection privileges Western, hierarchical mod- els over other alternatives. In an increasingly interconnected world, itis important to expand the choices to equip our students to both understand and appreciate other approaches to public discourse. While we might be tempted to simply reject “the tradition” as incapable of addressing contemporary issues of difference and diversity, we might also consid- er a more inclusive approach. Susan Jarratt, in Re-Reading the Sopbists: Clasical Rhetoric Refigured, resolves the choice that confronts us in this manner: “One pos- sible course for the contemporary rhetorician would be to jettison those classical origins as unassimilable to a contemporary conteat. .. . But I propose that a more comprehensive view of ‘the tradition’ will provide rich antecedents for later thetorical developments” (1991: xix). Jarratt notes that while her analysis “borrows from deconstruction the critique of binary structures” (xxii), it is ultimately a reconstructive project, one whose “critical capacity for exposing the contradictions inherent in dominant discourse suggests its relevance for literacy teachers today ag 96McPhail, Scott, and German 87 who seek ways to draw out minority voices” (xxiv). Although Jarratt’s primary audience is teachers of Composition, her re-reading of the Sophists has important implications for teachers of Public Speaking, whose own reshaping of rhetoric represents an important challenge to the dominant paradigm of our discipline: the practice of persuasion. ‘Ac other junctures in Communication’ history, we've encountered similar challenges to the dominant paradigm, and often they have resulted in stretching the boundaries of acceptable public expression. When Abraham Lincoln addressed listeners in the cemetery at Gettysburg, his message was initially over- shadowed by rejection of his presentational style; and yet, although Lincoln vio- lated the expansive oratorical style of his era, the power of his thoughts and words lives on. In similar ways, the messages of Sojourner ‘Truth, Chief Seattle, Freder- ick Douglass, and Susan B. Anthony were rejected because of who they were or how they framed their ideas. In retrospect, our lives have been enriched because expanding the parameters of communication to include others has encouraged our receptiveness to those messages. The fundamental lesson taught by our own public address history is that valuable ideas offen are disregarded because they do not fit the prevalent model of communication. If nothing else, history makes the case for a more varied, inclusive approach to public expression. Giving people more ways to communicate should, by the very nature of our discipline, be our goal in the educational process, but particularly at the foundational level of our introductory courses. In designing the basic courses, however, we realize that we could uninten- tionally build in structural impediments to inclusiveness. As Adams explains: “So powerful and pervasive are the folkways of academe as reinforcers of traditional academic practice that is it understandably difficult for college faculty to see beyond their own acculturation and to imagine alternative possibilities for the classroom” (1992: 7). Adams's admonition reminds us that che development of a basic course that values diversity must consider the theoretical as well as practical dimensions of discourse and pedagogy. If, for example, we echo the words of our textbooks and call for a linear pattern of argumentation, then we implicitly send the message of privilege for that pattern. Realistically, other patterns have worked as effectively and the process of argumentation depends noton a single pattern but on arguments in many different guises that reflect the lived interactions of speak- crs and listeners wich shared sociocultural assumptions within which the argu- ments operate. In creating a basic course that conveys the importance of valuing diversity, we must operationalize inclusion by addressing day-to-day issues. Practically, this means choosing a textbook that offers alternatives, design- ing assignments to encourage exploration, addressing concerns about how the course will be conducted, and sometimes convincing students that ic is important to explore multiple views. This process of guiding students, Baxter Magolda (1997) explains, “in exploring themselves, evaluating their ideas, and making judg- a?